My interpretation would be that DD is suggesting a refrain from a repost - preventing a nation from posting generally within the Court would appear at face to be a civil rights violation of that nation.
If I may respond to SWA, I can understand your concerns, but I believe your definition of "democracy" is flawed. A simple definition of democracy is "rule by the people*", but that can also be maintained through authoritative acts by popularly confirmed officials, in the case of the Court. If your concern is one of bias, there is an appeal process which will bring the handling of any particular case to examination by the court en banc. In any case, any sentencing and determinations of guilt or innocence in these cases will be handled by a jury, not the presiding Justice,who is esentially little more than a referee in the matter.
So, please don't take this the wrong way, but please check out the trial procedure and legal system a bit more thoroughly before crying foul.
Also, I would ask that Justices disposing of motions before the Court please include some text to grant insight into the procedure involved in reaching their decision, both to add transparency to the process, and add interpretive value for precedential concerns.
Byard
* Silence, technicalist.
