Witness the recent NJ Supreme Court decision on the Senate election. There was no doubt what the law said. Same principle applied to the rulings by the Florida Supremes in 2000. There was no ambiguity, no need to redefine anything.
Maybe the new "buzzword" is "compelling interest" as in Sandra Day O'Connor's rejection of the plain language of the 14th Amendment because Michigan had a "compelling interest" in diversity.
In the NJ and FL cases, perhaps it was just a "compelling interest to elect Democrats.
I'm sure! :-)
Hopefully, a larger number of 'We the people' will begin realizing we have a more compelling interest in restoring the courts and the rule of law, if even that be possible at this late date.