| I was reflecting on my last paragraph in my response and tied together the first and last paragraphs to come up with what I think SGCS blurring of the right and wrong is... in the first paragraph I used the quote of the Supreme Court nominee that alludes that she can come to a better decision based on her exposure than a white man... and in the last post I used an example of extreme judgment that has taken place in VT by progressive Judge(s). If you put the three together you come out with grey verses black and white when you contrast right and wrong to traditional jurisprudence where precedence is basis for ones understanding of the law. Under SGCS or more explicitly progressive superior jurisprudence wrong wouldn't necessarily be wrong by a certain class of people while it may be wrong by another class of people... an example, a superior SGCS judge(s) may look at a violation of a minority accused and take "into account" logical and reasonable (in their minds) justifications of why this person may have been "forced into a favorable environment for crime" where a person from a majority or different class would not have this available logic and reason to eliminate him/her from the law. If a middle class white person robs a rich guy on the street he would be judged under "normal" jurisprudence but if a black person from a disadvantaged robbed the subject of the first offense he would be held to a lesser fault because society had socially restricted his advancement to the level of the first offender. Confused yet or is everyone with me? | 
