[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: "...but more importanty, does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun that has been previously defined (both legally and socially) as a very specific and un-ambiguous thing."

Response: I think what they are doing is a form of Nominalism.

[Eastbound]

"I think what they are doing is a form of Nominalism."

Yes, but isn't that an antithetical and destructive approach by those who define the law -- those who demand non-ambiguity in legal procedures and quick to trashcan any document that doesn't have all the 't's' crossed and 'i's' dotted or having un-defined phrases?