I’ve read this a couple times and I’m still not sure what the author is saying. was it translated from modern Hebrew and this is normal tensing or was the author using unnecessarily flowery/verbose language?
The author used a lot of ‘clever’ language, metaphors and figures of speech and google translate failed to process it properly. The message is pretty clear from the sentences that were translated legibly, you can safely ignore the rest. e.g. with “quasi-judicial silencing” vs “quasi-silenced judging” he is making an argument that removing the pretext of reasonableness didn’t actually do anything because the judges will just make up another equivalent pretext under another name.
I’ve read this a couple times and I’m still not sure what the author is saying. was it translated from modern Hebrew and this is normal tensing or was the author using unnecessarily flowery/verbose language?
The author used a lot of ‘clever’ language, metaphors and figures of speech and google translate failed to process it properly. The message is pretty clear from the sentences that were translated legibly, you can safely ignore the rest. e.g. with “quasi-judicial silencing” vs “quasi-silenced judging” he is making an argument that removing the pretext of reasonableness didn’t actually do anything because the judges will just make up another equivalent pretext under another name.