By explaining the legal holes debate via the lens of science and theology, the essay offers two main insights. First, the essay argues that although the legal holes debate is often understood as simply being about executive measures in emergencies, the debate should also be seen as implicating a broader jurisprudential dispute about the very nature of the legal system. Second, the essay shows that the two approaches bear several surprising similarities--their skepticism of judges, their skepticism of legislators, and, most notably, their use of law-preserving violence.
Noa Ben-Asher, Legal Holes, 5 Unbound: Harv. J. Legal Left 1 (2009), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/654/.