Dworkin Theory Of Law

please answer following 7 essay questions and numbered it each question properly this is my final exam  What is your position on the Romano case? Use either Dworkin or Mezey to support your position.? Some inclusive legal positivists believe that “ought” statements should be derived from “is” statements. That is to say we should determine what “ought to be done” by evaluating what “is” or “has been done”. Do you see evidence of this in today’s legal system? Is this theory present in the Romano case?   Why does James Boyd White think law and literature are necessarily intertwined? Do you agree? Why ? How can literature help you to become a better citizen or lawyer?    Explain Dworkin’s theory of law. Do you think he would agree or disagree with the decision of the court in the Romano case?  Give clear examples from the case that support your reasoning.   Finnis, a critic of legal positivism states that “For a judge and for a lawyer trying to track judicial reasoning, the law has a double life”. The first life is a.) “its existence as the sheer fact that certain people have done such and such in the past and that certain people now have such and such dispositions to decide and act” and the second being b). “its existence as standards directive for the conscientious deliberations of those whose responsibility is to decide according to law” What do you think the he means by this statement and is it present in the decision of this case?    Naomi Mezey discusses “law as culture” as distinguished from “law and culture”. What does she mean? Do you think law and culture should be separate? Why? Is ‘law as culture” present in this case? Do you think Socrates would agree with this viewpoint?   How would Feinberg analyze the rights and duties present in this case? Give clear examples from the case.