When Conservative rabbis make Jewish legal decisions (pesak halakhah), they navigate a complex balance between tradition and change - an art rather than a precise science. In response to scholarly critiques of Conservative halakhic methodology, this rejoinder examines how decisors (poskim) can authentically integrate historical evidence and interpretive flexibility while maintaining fidelity to Jewish legal precedent. Through systematic analysis of halakhic literature, the research addresses three significant challenges: Rabbi Adler's approach to Sabbath leniencies, Rabbi Yuter's concerns about historical versus legal sources, and Rabbi Goldenberg's views on the relationship between critical scholarship and halakhic process. The analysis reveals that poskim have historically elevated contextual sources to legal significance under specific circumstances, and that general principles derived from specific laws constitute legitimate tools for halakhic decision-making. Conservative Judaism ultimately benefits from pluralistic halakhic discourse when grounded in genuine commitment to Torah scholarship and observance, while authentic legal decisions must both serve committed communities and maintain organic continuity with traditional precedents.