You seem like you are in a muddle. This is also a typical state that liberals enter when discussing law and the Constitution. They make it seem like both sids are equally subjective on the issue even though it is themselves who want to not be objective in regards to the facts. Conservatives on this issue want the rule of law to be upheld, yet you are arguing based upon the past case of Arthur that it dosent really matter.
You said — “You seem like you are in a muddle. This is also a typical state that liberals enter when discussing law and the Constitution. They make it seem like both sids are equally subjective on the issue even though it is themselves who want to not be objective in regards to the facts. Conservatives on this issue want the rule of law to be upheld, yet you are arguing based upon the past case of Arthur that it dosent really matter.”
It’s no muddle to me to abide by whatever Supreme Court decision comes out, no matter whether I agree with it or not. And it’s certainly not a muddle to me to understand the *reality* of a situation (as we have right now) which is similar to the “reality” that people had to face before in our country (as they did with President Arthur).
So, it’s a very clear issue to follow the Supreme Court decision and to also recognize *reality* as it happens and don’t confuse wishes and desires with reality... Then you’ll be fine.
And if there are changes to be made, you work within the system to make the changes. That all seem very clear to me and not too hard to follow, actually...