There was a lot of speculation, not too long ago, that Justice Alito would be leaving after the end of the October 2025 session of the US Supreme Court. The idea was: (1) that Alito wanted to be replaced by Trump, so he would want to get out while Trump still controlled the Senate and could still secure a younger Alito clone as replacement for the retiring Alito, and (2) that Alito has a new book coming out, October 6th, and he would want to be free to do a book-selling tour at that time. Of course if Alito is still a Justice as the new October 2026 session goes underway, book selling opportunities will be constrained. So went the speculation. But when Justices do retire on the basis on such calculations, they generally do so right after the final gavel of the old session falls -- this year, that gavel fell on June 30th. Yet Alito made no such announcement. Quite the contrary, early this month he told The Wall Street Journal that he is "here for another term." ...
My quote from Brandom about inferentialism earlier this week has me thinking. Consider the following inference. If a flower bed contains only geraniums and violas then it contains no roses. This flower bed contains only geraniums and violas. Thus, this flower bed contains no roses. That seems straightforward although it is more Stoic than Aristotelean, and to some minds the "if ... then" of Stoi logic sounds question begging. Could we put it in more categorical syllogistic form if we wanted to? I suppose so. We would want to make explicit the premise that the different types of flowers are mutually exclusive: that is, a geranium is reliably not a rose. Couldn't there be a hybrid? I have no idea, but I'm presuming any hybrid gera-rose would be neither geranium nor rose. Even with a gera-rose, every flower in this flower bed has been identified as to type, and in each case the type is non-rose. Reasoning as process of elimination. Just think...