THE MANY LOGICAL FALLACIES OF JUDGE HARRY T. EDWARDS’ COVERED-BY DOCTRINE
Federal Circuit Court Judge Edwards and I both took our high school lessons in logic, reasoning, proof, and bias in the little town of Uniondale, NY—named after a union training center once located there. There we learned about fallacies, i.e., the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument or conclusion, e.g., all dogs are dangerous because I was bitten by one. They are used to persuade by deception, even though they can appear quite valid at first glance. So, I am at a loss to understand how the Judge so recklessly built his defense of the covered-by (CB) doctrine on a bundle of fallacies. Given that his fellow judges are currently considering the NLRB’s rejection of the covered-by doctrine in a case known as Endurance Environmental Solution v. NLRB, it seems like a good time to shine a little light on the loads of illogical babble the CB doctrine rests atop. Consequently, I have listed below the many fallacies in his latest covered-by decision (DOJ v. FLRA, 875 F.3d 667 (2017), with an occasional reference to his 1992 one (Dep’t. of the Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C.Cir. 1992), which first introduced the federal sector to the Harry T. Edwards covered-by doctrine. Continue reading →
