“Going hybrid” about legal discourse: Why? Or Why not?

Various authors have explored the fruits of developing an expressivist account of legal discourse and thought by drawing on parallel developments of expressivism in metaethics. Influential in the metaethical case has been to develop a "hybrid" theory that combines expressivism with cognitivism. This paper critically examines the prospects for pursuing an analogous hybrid cognitivist-expressivist theory of certain statements about the law. I raise challenges for implementations which model normative uses of "thin" terms on expressives such as pejoratives. I argue that supplementing expressivism with the claim that internal legal statements have a descriptive meaning does not afford a dialectical advantage.