Nobody is saying that Burdick theorized any of this stuff, or frankly was wrong in his classification. For sure, the debate has often been conducted in terms of whether Burdick was right or wrong. When you peel back that question, however, it is clear that he had an appropriate justification for what he did. But then the real debate begins, which again is whether the laws that apply to 206 can be faithfully applied to 213-1.
If the only question is whether Burdick made a reasonable classification based on his knowledge and understanding at the time, well that question hardly warrants any kind if spirited debate at all - the evidence is overwhelmingly in Burdick's corner.
|