I hate to piggy-back on the celebrated Professor Leiter, but this piece by David Rose in the CSM really is the dumbest thing I've read in a long while. Yes, the consequentialist / nonconsequentialist distinction is botched; yes, Rose has no idea about legal theory, recent or otherwise; yes, Rose gets Rawls stupendously, horrifically wrong. But the best part has to be that Rose's own argument is a consequentialist one!
Would someone please write a note to the to the CSM giving Rose the beat-down he has earned. Thanks in advance.