Well if you had paid attention to your references, you would have noticed most of Roosevelt's New Deal were put into place without intervention of the US Supreme Court and before the bill you referenced.
The point being? If the court does not intervene, Roosevelt has not problem. But there have been some intervention before 1936. And this was, of course, a problem. I admit I don't know how serious this problem was, how important were the interventions for the whole New Deal game. Whatever, the point is that later this problem disappeared.
Without evidence....? The World Justice Project rates Mother Russia near the bottom of its Rule of Law Index. Mother Russia scores 77 out of 102 countries.
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=f81c9310-243a-40a9-8a95-6506cb7f96fe
And there is much more.
There are much more NATO propaganda sources, of course. But, ok, let's see, even propaganda sources sometimes contain useful information.
https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/zgyzz/russian_style_rol.pdf presents the Chodorkowski case as "the most notorious example" of Russia not being a state of law. Of course, there is no doubt that Russia at the Yelzin time, when oligarchs like Chodorkowski ruled, was a mafia state, Chodorkowski has liked to see his opponents murdered at his birthday. Then Putin came, and this mafia boss ended in prison, and what he has stolen was confiscated. And the West whines about the horrible court system which allowed to imprison their beloved Chodorkowski.
In fact, this case remembers the American way of fighting with the mafia, were Al Capone was sued for tax evasion instead of his murders, because even if these murders were well-known, it was not possible to prove them. Same case here, everybody in Russia has known about the birthday present for Chodorkowski (murder of the major of an oil town who has organized mass demonstrations against Chodorkowski) but to prove this in court is not that easy. So he was sued for some more harmless things which could be proven. Instead of convicting him for murder, which would have been just (nobody doubts that murder was part of what all oligarchs have done) but without sufficient proof in that particular case.
Just to clarify some points: Russia was not really a state of law nor in the tsarist past, even much less in Soviet time, and even if during the mafia rule (Yelzin time) there was a little more "state of law" in comparison with Soviet rule, it was simply corrupt mafia rule, where for 30 000 $ you could get rid of every legal investigation. Instead, the American tradition was much better, I would really like to have a court system comparable to that of the US around 1800, that of 1900 would be fine too (I would have, of course, objections about the laws themself, but this is a different problem).
But if one evaluates what actual politicians are worth, one should evaluate what changes. Is there, now, more rule of law as before, or less? Is the country moving toward rule of law or away from it? Even if this movement toward a state of law would be close to ideal, it would be stupid to expect that some 25 years after the end of totalitarian law and 15 years after mafia rule one can create an ideal state of law. Let's add that Putin had, in his first years, to win two wars - the Chechen war and the war against the mafia rulers like Chodorkowski - and times of war are usually not times where rule of law is increasing.
So what is the result of Putin's rule? Let's look at what is claimed by the source
https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/zgyzz/russian_style_rol.pdf you have postet:
Over the past two decades, with surprisingly little fanfare, the legislative base and institutional infrastructure of the Russian legal system have undergone a remarkable transformation. Citizens’ access to the legal system has been enhanced through the introduction of justice-of-the-peace courts (mirovye sudy), which have absorbed the bulk of simple cases, freeing up other courts to devote attention to more complicated cases. Thanks to the internet, information about the substance of law and the activities of courts at all levels is increasingly transparent. Not coincidentally, Russians’ use of the courts has grown dramatically. The number of civil (noncriminal) cases has doubled over the past decade. ... .
And if one omits some propaganda language (standard exercise if one wants to extract some truth from propaganda sources) one finds that:
The dual legal system that has evolved in Russia — in which the courts can be relied on to handle mundane cases ... does provide [some] predictability that lies at the heart of the rule of law
Your reaction to this quote is predictable, of type "this is what you have omitted". Let's see:
but are likely to bow to the will of the powerful in touchier cases—is a far cry from the rule-of-law–based state that was the initial goal.
The claim is about what is bad is hidden behind a diffuse "likely" - nothing but a personal opinion of a US state paid propagandist.
But in this case I do not really object - Russia is yet far away from an ideal state of law. But it moves in the right direction. Which is all one can expect. On the other hand, the US is also far away from an ideal state of law. Unfortunately, it moves in the wrong direction. Secret laws, controlled by secret courts, would have been impossible in the US 1900 (correct me if I'm wrong). But after 9/11 they appeared. And there seems to be not much resistance.
Just because someone or a group of people say things, it doesn't make them true.
Learn to read. I have not even claimed that everything what is written in this link is true. I have made the point that everybody has to evaluate the content himself, and to decide himself if what they say is true.
You behave like a small child, who needs parents to tell them what is true. So, you interpret the sources I give in a similar way - as if I would tell you that you have to believe what the source claims. But adults always decide themself what they believe. My source
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html contains quotes from Patriot, and quotes from the constitution, and claims that there are contradictions. Decide yourself. Check yourself if the quotes are correct.
If these individuals truly feel aggrieved, they have recourse through the court system to prove the veracity of their claims. Since that has not happened, one has to doubt the veracity of their claims.
Sorry, but to use the court system you need a lot of money. And if you don't trust this court system, this would be stupid. I see quite obvious contradictions - see yourself. If these guys don't try the legal courts, in such IMHO obvious contradictions, it simply means that they don't trust these courts. Which is in full agreement with my expectations. I would also consider attempts to go to Supreme Court as throwing away a lot of money.
The World Justice Project rates Mother Russia near the bottom of its Rule of Law Index. Mother Russia scores 77 out of 102 countries.
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/
LOL, yet another propaganda rating. My personal justice project rates Uncle Sam at the total bottom of my personal Rule of Justice Index, without even nearby competitors. Russia is also quite low on this index. An important part of my personal justice index is the overall incarceration rate.
Of course, it is only a rough approximation. There may be countries where the population is more criminal, thus, a just system would incarcerate more people. There may be countries where too much criminals go unpunished. Whatever, it is a reasonable first approximation: The lower the rate of incarceration in general, the better. And, once in our world all cultures manage to have states with incarceration rates below 100, one can be sure that a reasonable just system of justice can manage incarceration rates below 100/100 000, and that higher rates suggest a large part of incarcerated people which would be free in a just system.
