Update 08-courts-apologia.md

08-courts/08-courts-apologia.md

@@ -24,6 +24,6 @@ Its failure however, was not due to its goal being flawed, but to our knowledge
 
 Even at the time of this writing, we still have not yet formalized induction. For this reason, `Wellspring` will also have to adopt the imperfect trial by jury process - and moreover, we will still have the Achilles' heel of activist judges who will refuse to merely read the constitution as an input, and reason about its contents to draw valid inferences about whether or not a particular law is constitutional, in a originalist fashion, but will instead interpret the text of the constitution to draw the conclusions which their personal politics would prefer.
 
-Until such time as we have formalized induction, we will have to continue using trial by jury. But understand that the aspiration goal of an individualist court system is **not** for a jury to be the final appellate authority. Trial by jury is an imperfect substitute for the true ideal: that Aristotle's **law of identity** itself -- pure reason itself -- be the final appellate authority.
+Until such time as we have formalized induction, we will have to continue using trial by jury. But understand that the aspiration goal of an individualist court system is **not** for a jury to be the final appellate authority. Trial by jury is an imperfect substitute for the true ideal: that Aristotle's **law of identity** itself -- reason itself -- be the final appellate authority.
 
 When induction is finally formalized, it is within the intended future of `Wellspring` that a new court process will be adopted which hardcodes the rules of valid inference into the proceedings and drastically reduces the discretion of both judges and juries, to interpret the constitution, and to reason about the facts and the meaning of the laws when arriving at judgments.