Opinion ID: 1834644
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The AG's Premise: A Critical Assessment

Text: Close scrutiny of the opinions of the weight of authority reveals its employment of loopified or circular reasoning  which amounts to nothing more than unacceptable ipse dixitism or dogmatism. Van Doren & Bergin, Critical Legal Studies: A Dialogue, 21 NEW ENGLAND L.REV. 291, 296 & 299-300 (1985-86). Restated, courts in other jurisdictions have generally reasoned that bingo is a lottery simply  because that's what other courts have concluded.  In short, most courts which have addressed the issue have merely cross-referenced one another for authoritative support. See, e.g., Secretary of State v. St. Augustine Church, 766 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tenn. 1989) (In almost every state having [a constitutional] provision [prohibiting lotteries], the game `bingo' ... has been held to constitute a `lottery.'); accord Bender v. Arundel Arena, Inc., 248 Md. 181, 236 A.2d 7, 11 (1967) (Most states have held ... bingo to be [a] lotter[y], finding that they combine the classic elements of a lottery.). This Court cannot in clear conscience blindly concur in the conclusion that bingo is a lottery simply because other courts have so concluded. Cf. O.W. Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 HARV.L.REV. 456, 469 (1897) (It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if ... the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.); see also Van Doren & Bergin, supra, at 299-300 (Reason can only help you get from point A to point B. But where did point A come from?) (citing D. HOFSTADTER, GODEL, ESCHER, BACH, AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID 23-24, 229-30 (1979)).