courts, politics and law must act within well-defined spheres to protect and promote specific values. The dedication to rational or revealed truth and the conclusion that right and wrong, good and bad, can be unreservedly identified helps to create and objectify an integrated social reality that we can all understand as good and satisfying, at least with regards to the two basic needs just identified. For this reason, it is important that our law maintain some rational integrity and that it employ reason to justify its activity. Our social, economic, and political history has simply brought us to the point where we identify the good with reason, and this identification ultimately sustains our society.
The simple fact is that we must provide some way of employing our reason to determine what constitutes a political trial and which political trials are good so that we can maintain the integrity of our courts as institutions reflecting, embodying, and promoting the application of reason to human affairs. Thus, we must now demonstrate a method through which we can analyze specific situations in concrete terms to determine which situations are political trials and which are not. For this we must look to the characteristic uses of political trial in our society, gain a "perspicuous overview" of its uses, and thus gain some insight into the relevant resemblances with which we ought to be concerned. Once this is accomplished we may then go on to employ the same analysis to identify good and bad political trials.