 That account of a case like Garner v Burr would support the controversial claim that judges have widespread discretion in resolving legal disputes. Legal philosophers have debated whether that claim undermines the ideal of the rule of law, or reflects a basic requirement of the rule of law: that a legal system needs techniques for the resolution of legal issues that are not determined by the law (see Endicott 2000, chapter 9, and on the value of vagueness in law see Asgeirsson 2020; on a variety of issues concerning vagueness and philosophy of law, see the essays in Keil and Poscher 2016).