Not in a traditional paradigm where we apply the Bill of Rights didactically with deductive reasoning. But we are fully operating under a transformational paradigm where the objective rule of law is dead and judges provide their dialectic opinion on what once defined words now mean. We are fully soviet.
So, you think that these courts that you describe are going to interpret the words that you've highlighted in ways that you believe are appropriate?
If we don't have the "Rule of Law", so named for its fixed set of defined words and procedures, we certainly won't have a "just" version of its replacement.
No, not at all. I'm not the OP. I'm pointing out that there is no such thing as didactic rule of law in the US anymore. Legal definitions are contorted to best serve the interests of the uniparty.
I think OPs suggestion to leverage legal definitions is fruitless in the face of a system that rules inductively.
(post is archived)