Though, I’d also recommend philarchive.org/rec/BETQWA

Ah, you beat me to it. 😅

I’m not a historian of that particular element of law.

However, as an English lawyer, I know it’s more than appropriate to use ‘Anglo’ to describe the rule of law tradition in this context, given the relevant common law/doctrines.

It seems the problem here is that you don’t know rule of law.

This is disingenuous. And you’ve been repeatedly told you’re incorrect.

Your Q was why ‘Anglo.’ As you had been repeatedly told, by many experts, it’s because the rule of law is grounded in English law.

You simply are not aware of legal doctrine and English law, so didn’t understand why ‘Anglo’

And you seem unaware of the doctrine of the rule of law and its development within English common law, going back more than 400 years.

It's wildly unclear to me why someone who has absolutely no qualification in English law is commenting on a matter of English law.

Because US law is based originally on English law. Early US lawyers trained in English law, some in the Inns of Court. They consulted English case law. English legal doctrines are very obviously present in US law. English cases are very obviously cited.

This is a rather odd hill to want to die on.

But, to point out the obvious, the Case of Proclamations and Case of Prohibitions are actually more than 400 years old at this point.

I’d consider them foundational rule of law cases 🤷🏼‍♂️

What cruel punishment

The moral degenerates are one thing; but when they come for the philosophy, then it’s too much!

She also frames much of her 'argument' here in terms of foetal personhood, raising the issue of the domain of 'moral concern.'

Sure, to an undergraduate this might be an interesting question/issue; but, this isn't really an accurate picture of the literature she seems to be referring to.

We fix racism by…. Doing the racism? And that will fix the division by… making us all racist?

Excellent plan. 🙃

I was going to say…

You don’t download all the pdfs and put them in folders and/or print them out? 😱

It’s almost like…

Legitimizing extreme positions, normalizing them within public discourse, and failing to fight back…. Shifts the Overton window.

No person has ever thought this before! Unknown! There is absolutely no historical proof of this… oh.

In the end, we no longer operate in a marketplace of ideas.
Platforms run a marketplace of feeling, where attention, not evidence, decides what rises. Emotional charge beats truth every time. Politics adapts to that logic, producing hollow performances instead of functional decisions.