[FRIAM] rule of law

[glen]

“There are no legal grounds to start a criminal case if a soldier refuses to fight while on Russian territory.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/they-were-furious-the-russian-soldiers-refusing-to-fight-in-ukraine

This is fascinating to me given the recent draft brief SCOTUS leak. Two salons ago, we were hijacked by someone gobsmacked by the content of the leak. They were in full-freakout about having a precedented "right" being nullified. I tried to play a friendly Devil's Advocate saying we need to "do the work" (ala numerical analysis and simulation) rather than live with a prematurely installed master equation that matches the conclusion we (all) know will eventually obtain anyway. Ya know ... TANSTAAFL. If they have reliable law in Russia, where they poison political enemies and fill the airwaves with bullshit, then we *can* work through this constructively/generatively.

Whatever. It fascinates me because it's unclear what the rule of law means if it's *not* axiomatic, which it clearly isn't given the originalism/livingism nonsense. If there's a stable foundation anywhere, here, *where* is it? Is it in the Enlightenment ethos of reasonableness? Or somewhere downstream of the Good Faith actor? ... maybe Respect for Persons? Some sort of enlightened autonomy/sovereignty?

Or is Trumpism/Cynicism/Postmodernism actually correct and it's completely fluid, purely a function of power and who happens to end up in a position of power? My anti-foundationalism doesn't go quite that far. My pluralism prevents perfect reduction and isomorphism, but still allows for foundation of one type or another ... maybe just 'cause I'm too lazy to Try to Take Over the World: https://gizmodo.com/every-single-pinky-and-the-brain-plan-to-take-over-the-1778890186

-- 
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙