From footnote 8 on page 205 of Thinking Like a Lawyer by Frederick Schauer:
Supplemented context: There are, of course, controversies about and challenges to these venerable distinctions as well, some but not all of which come from perspectives loosely labeled as “postmodern.” And it is true that many purported descriptions have a normative element to them, with values being smuggled in under the cover of purported neutral description.
Nevertheless, it is sufficiently implausible to insist that there is no difference between “John fired a gun whose bullet entered Mary’s heart and caused her death” and “John ought to go to prison for murdering Mary”
thatallegedly sophisticated challenges to any of the distinctions in the text need not detain us any further here.
Would someone please explain or unravel? I understand the last (subordinate) clause as comprising these parts:
- subject: allegedly sophisticated challenges to any of the distinctions in the text
- verb phrase: need not detain
- predicate us any further here.
Yet how does the greyed that connect all this to the first subordinate clause “Nevertheless, it . . . for murdering Mary”?
I can endure the meaning of the two clauses, but am confused by the meaning of this entire sentence.