Well argued, Bricker! I don’t always agree with you (irrelevant as that may be for a non-USian), but you invariably provide a clear, logical, and usually thought-provoking reasoning for your position.
If I understand Bricker correctly, he’s advocating that we have not only an opportunity to adjust our judicial and legislative systems to ensure justice, but also make adjustments such that those systems are fairer and more scalable when it comes to the content of the law. His arguments include retrospective analysis on past decisions that were based on flawed premises, even if those decisions have been justified.
He’s advocating that instead of using the agents of change that have been successful in the past, but are flawed, we should also take on the burden/responsibility (for lack of better words) of making sure our movement’s ultimate success culminates in making the right change via the best mechanism.
Is that a fair assessment?
He said that? Did he note the best mechanism? I missed it.
He noted the best mechanism, but did not offer any insight into what to do when that mechanism fails to produce social justice, as it often has.
I believe that would be this part here:
Ohh. And that’s why I missed it. It seemed incongruous with many of the comments I’ve seen in this thread. Thanks.
Thanks. I put both your comments together to piece it together.