[jonathanwallace]

> there is absolutely no space for hallucination in a court of law

I wish you were factually correct here.

We've seen time and time again where courts are mockeries of the ideal because of the people in them and the faults they bring with them.

E.g. see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf and the documented proof in the dissent contradicting the claims in the ruling.

[Miraste]

That case, to me, is indicative of a larger problem - it's 75 pages of arcane justifications, and yet I already knew how all of the justices had voted just from reading the premise, because like every Supreme Court case in a politicized area it was decided by personal conviction and the rest is post-hoc rationalization.

There is no hallucination on the part of the humans involved, only intellectual dishonesty.

[lolinder]

That there exist mockeries of justice is not proof that we should allow them.

[jonathanwallace]

100% Agreed.

Rhetorical question: Now what's the enforcement mechanism?

(Also, what's with the downvotes?!?!)