At the very least, the court should make itself subject to the code of conduct that applies to the rest of the federal judiciary.
Neither of these patterns is borne out by the analysis, suggesting that the structures of the languages are lineage-specific and not governed by universals.
Chomsky's grammar should show patterns of language change that are independent of the family tree or the pathway tracked through it, whereas Greenbergian universality predicts strong co-dependencies between particular types of word-order relations.
The second, by Joshua Greenberg, takes a more empirical approach to universality, identifying traits (particularly in word order) shared by many languages which are considered to represent biases that result from cognitive constraints.
A few generative rules are then sufficient to unfold the entire fundamental structure of a language, which is why children can learn it so quickly.
This is because the networked computer has sparked a secret war between downloading and uploading — between passive consumption and active creation — whose outcome will shape our collective future in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Applications like tumblr.com, which allow users to combine pictures, words and other media in creative ways and then share them, have the potential to add stickiness by amusing, entertaining and enlightening others.
Not only did they develop such a device but by the turn of the millennium they had also managed to embed it in a worldwide system accessed by billions of people every day.
The challenge the computer mounts to television thus bears little similarity to one format being replaced by another in the manner of record players being replaced by CD players.
One reason for the persistence of this pyramid of production is that for the past half-century, much of the world's media culture has been defined by a single medium — television — and television is defined by downloading.
Even after the advent of widespread social media, a pyramid of production remains, with a small number of people uploading material, a slightly larger group commenting on or modifying that content, and a huge percentage remaining content to just consume.
In physics, one approach takes this impulse for unification to its extreme, and seeks a theory of everything — a single generative equation for all we see.
It is becoming less clear, however, that such a theory would be a simplification, given the dimensions and universes that it might entail.
Here, Darwinism seems to offer justification for if all humans share common origins it seems reasonable to suppose that cultural diversity could also be traced to more constrained beginnings.
The most famous of these efforts was initiated by Noam Chomsky, who suggested that humans are born with an innate language — acquisition capacity that dictates a universal grammar.
To filter out what is unique from what is shared might enable us to understand how complex cultural behavior arose and what guides it in evolutionary or cognitive terms.
When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it shapes is inescapably political — which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily dismissed as unjust.
Humans are unique in their capacity to not only make tools but then turn around and use them to create superfluous material goods — paintings, sculpture and architecture — and superfluous experiences — music, literature, religion and philosophy.
The second half of the 20th century saw a collection of geniuses, warriors, entrepreneurs and visionaries labour to create a fabulous machine that could function as a typewriter and printing press, studio and theatre, paintbrush and gallery, piano and radio, the mail as well as the mail carrier.
We don't need more categories, but we need to change the way we think about categories.
To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage, those living and thriving in the gray areas.
They are energetic participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money and ideas.
We need them to feel that home can be both here and there and that they can belong to two nations honorably.
We need them to imagine the United States as a place where they can be productive for a while without committing themselves to staying forever.
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Looking beyond the culture war logic of right or wrong means opening up the middle ground and understanding that managing immigration today requires multiple paths and multiple outcomes, including some that are not easy to accomplish legally in the existing system.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds.
Along with the many folks looking to make a permanent home in the United States came those who had no intention to stay, and who would make some money and then go home.
We hail them as Americans in the making, or brand them as aliens to be kicked out.
That framework has contributed mightily to our broken immigration system and the long political paralysis over how to fix it.