These two sections represent the second aspect of Hart’s response to American legal realism: his argument against the view that the law is what the courts decide. Both sections address the same topic, with §2 serving to define the issue as Hart sees it and §3 providing the heart of his discussion.

• When reading §2, think through each of the forms of “rule-skepticism” Hart describes and ask yourself which seems most plausible. Although Hart will focus on one form to discuss in depth in §3, some of the others are worthy of further consideration. For example, Dworkin will reject Hart’s way of avoiding the “false dilemma” described on p. 139, but he will still hold that the dilemma is false (since, according to him, judges can be bound by standards other than rules). As a result, he could be considered a kind of rule skeptic though he is not one who would agree the views of the American legal realists quoted by Hart.

• In §3, look for the way in which Hart wishes to distinguish finality and infallibility. In particular, think about his discussion of the significance of statements of the score made by official scorers in ordinary games by contrast with their significance in the game of “scorer’s discretion.” These ideas will probably be the ones we will spend most time on in our discussion.