You're listening to the partially examined life, a podcast by some guys read one point

set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it.

Our question for episode 304 is something like how do judges make decisions in hard cases?

And we read Ronald Dworkin's article The Model of Rules from 1967 and a secondary source,

the Hardest Working Debate, a short guide for the perplexed by Scott J. Shapiro from 2007.

For more information, please visit partiallyexaminedlife.com.

This is Mark Linton-Meyer, exhausted by the linguistic limits of some particular phrase in Madison, Wisconsin.

This is Seth Paskin acting on principle and not policy in Austin, Texas.

This is Wes Aulon, not controlled by any established rule, but exercising discretion in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This is Dylan Casey maintaining discretion in Madison, Wisconsin.

So this is on the Hardest Dworkin Debate.

I was inspired to do this.

We watched some of these Jeffrey Kaplan videos on YouTube explaining Hardest Concept of Law

for our last episode.

And his next one in the series was on the Hardest Dworkin Debate.

And we had already planned to read some Dworkin for this upcoming episode on only

numerated rights where we will consider the most recent abortion ruling.

So this seems like a great piece of connecting tissue, but it's complicated in that there

were several articles between Dworkin and not so much heart, but hearts followers back

and forth for many years starting with this one that we read, the Model of Rules 1967,

concluding with this book from the 80s laws empire that I didn't want to pull out.

But I happened to googling around find this Shapiro article, which sums up everything.

...