Are the lawyers going to keep trying to shove this “case law” precedent in our faces, or is there going to be a reasoned and consistent interpretation of the law that makes sense to the non-lawyers out here that make up jury pools?
A law too arcane or complex to be explained to the general public is no law at all, but a planned trap for the unwary.
I think it comes down to which side can shout the loudest, which in practice means which side has the MSM on its side.