This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith

This continues to make little sense since you continue to ignore that a big % of your made up "real" part of the system also constitutes a part of the bad faith party! > It should also be based on good faith Setting the wishes aside, it isn't, the judges easily act in bad faith when it suits them, so this also doesn't explain much. Neither is it "designed" to take bad faith at face value, again, to be specific - just read the Supreme Court case about this law. The flood/design explain nothing: it would've been just as easy to block the implementation of what the court itself says is an unconstitutional law (see, no "good faith" basis required) and then don't even review it fully because the court has no time (see, the flood can flow in either direction)...