I think it's more of an acknowledgment that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to any system of reasoning or knowledge. Even known true statements can't be proved all the way down --- at some point they have to rest on axioms that are assumed (or taken on faith).
We could take it a step further and discuss what establishes objective moral values and duties, but that plants us firmly in a discussion centering around worldviews and their truth/falsehood.
All to say, I believe there is an objectively true worldview upon which objective moral values and duties rest, upon which an objective jurisprudence can rest, upon which good (though inescapably subjective) judicial opinions can be issued. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm frustrated with what seems an intentional departure from objectivity (and an originalist jurisprudence to boot) as the goal in certain circles.
> I think it's more of an acknowledgment that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to any system of reasoning or knowledge
Godel's theorem is a limitation on any system of formal rules, but it's not the limitation I'm talking about.
> Even known true statements can't be proved all the way down --- at some point they have to rest on axioms that are assumed (or taken on faith).
This is a different limitation from Godel's theorem, but it's also not quite the limitation I'm talking about (though I think it's related to it--see below).
> I believe there is an objectively true worldview upon which objective moral values and duties rest
This is the limitation I'm talking about. Even if you have an objectively true view of the world, moral values and duties aren't just about the way the world is; they're about the way humans want the world to be. And human wants are subjective; if you and I disagree about how we want the world to be, there is no objective way to resolve our disagreement.
We could take it a step further and discuss what establishes objective moral values and duties, but that plants us firmly in a discussion centering around worldviews and their truth/falsehood.
All to say, I believe there is an objectively true worldview upon which objective moral values and duties rest, upon which an objective jurisprudence can rest, upon which good (though inescapably subjective) judicial opinions can be issued. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm frustrated with what seems an intentional departure from objectivity (and an originalist jurisprudence to boot) as the goal in certain circles.