How Critical Race Theorists Define ‘Rule of Law’
A "Legal formalism"?
September 13, 2012 - 2:41 pm
– Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Second Edition by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic
****
Stories also at PJ Media, which of course have nothing to do with a presidential administration, political party, activist movement, and Department of Justice united under such a definition:
-
The Obvious Reasons Why Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Regime Is Anti-Democratic, Anti-American, and Antisemitic
-
The Democratic Party and a Second Holocaust
-
Sluts on Parade: SlutWalk SF 2012
-
(Exclusive) Internal DOJ Documents Argued for SC Voter ID Approval … but Obama Appointees Overruled
-
The Hatred of Derrick Bell’s Afrolantica Legacies
Er… I don’t get it. They’re correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_formalism
“Legal formalism” DOESN’T mean “the law is just a formality”…
…it’s the “some theorists believe” part…
It is not just the “some theorists believe” part. It’s the brusque equivalence with “Legal formalism.” The “rule” part in “rule of law” means “who’s in charge?” The “law” part is not limited to government enacted law but encompasses natural law. Thus, “rule of law” essentially means government is constrained by the natural law. Two anathema concepts to the race hucksters – that government can be constrained and that natural law exists (and constrains them, too).