If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard

If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth