It could have been easily included in the analysis. I can only conclude it was found not to have been important. The analysis will tell you whether or not a proposed variable is or is not important enough to include in the model.Nor fake resumes being conservative up to the time of appointment, like Souter or Kennedy.
Again, that variable could easily be tested for its importance and then be included or excluded from the model. If I were doing it, I would definitely test for it to see if it was important. But if it weren't, I wouldn't try to force it. I could see this one going either way.Can it account for chaos theory like butterfly wings or Roberts’ blackmail?
Are butterfly wings important?No. Don't even have to do an analysis of that one.
Can it account for chaos theory like butterfly wings or Roberts’ blackmail?
Are butterfly wings important?
No. Don’t even have to do an analysis of that one.
.....
Weather prediction in chaos theory mentions as an example “butterfly wings”; this wasn’t meant literally but as a for instance...
I can’t stay in the 100% literal world and be a scientist as I’d miss sarcasm and be a social outcast.
I know enough about programming and AI and modeling and human behavior to know we can’t mimic it 100%.
Blackmail and fake resumes aren’t really necessary. The problem is the monopoly of legal theory taught in law schools. There is no source for lawyers with historically traditional views, and certainly no reservoir of them in the federal judiciary.
Federal courts, including the SC, need to be reined in by dramatic legislative action. That’s the only way forward from here.