[DiogenesLamp]

The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted. Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.

I don’t think that’s a difficult concept to understand, and I’m not going to keep repeating it.

All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish.

Let me try once more to acquaint you with the fallacy of your presentation.

Argumentum ad populum.

[BigGuy22]

"All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish."
__

Well, sort of, though Michelson and Morley had a lot more to do with it.

But the analogy between science and law fails utterly in a context like this. It is currently held (generally -- Dirac differed) in the Physics community that there is no ether. And if there is no ether now, there was no ether then. Scientific theories evolve, but scientific facts don't change, through consensus or anything else.

But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.

Whether any of these laws is *correct* or "incorrect* is a totally separate issue from whether they are in fact laws. And one of the ways that laws change is through a kind of consensus -- for example, the majority in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.

One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.