As you already know, politics is not law. And using procedure to mask issue-advocacy is essentially par for the course in politics (although this methodology sips into law practice as well). The fact is that this community is very issue-minded rather than process-minded (as it purports).
A brief look at which issues get upvotes and which get censored (erased, muted by being put on hold or closed) will reveal a very clear picture that procedure is used as a cudgel here rather than as a tool to streamline communications.
But, it is rude to the point of being troll worthy to vote to close a
question like that on the grounds that it is unclear what is being
asked simply because you want to pretend that you don't understand the
intent of the question.
I call it "willful ignorance" and I don't believe I invented the term. It's not a bug, but rather a feature of any forum which uses procedure to quash undesired lines of inquiry. And you are right. It is very common here.
Consider, for example, this question:
Why is President Trump making such a big deal about fake news, and specifically targeting reputable organizations like The New York Times and CNN?
It, clearly, suggests a premise and solicits opinions which would justify it. You can ignore, for a second, the fact that it got so many upvotes. Look at how the moderators are treating it. It was put on hold to protect it against "poor quality answers". In other words, it's open only to the site's semi-orthodoxy to prevent those who haven't been blessed by the groupthink to participate. I know I exaggerate, but it's only for the purposes of demonstration.
Now consider this question (of mine):
Is “it's an active investigation” the new McCarthyism?
This started out as a question about procedural similarities in the mode in which accusations were being made against a right-wing US President. And it immediately got attacked, was put on hold as something "not about politics". I kid you not. The question comparing modern political discourse to McCarthyism was voted as being not about politics. And it eventually got deleted after a few people tried to answer it (in the negative!) in the comments. I do freely admit that I did mock those who disallowed answers of the question. I edited the question and mentioned the irony of McCarthyist tactics against a question about McCarthyist tactics.
So while the 1st question was there purely to solicit opinions and the 2nd one was to invite people to draw a distinction between political methods used, possibly based on verifiable facts, the 1st was elevated because of its premises while the 2nd was shouted down because of its premises.
In both cases, procedure was used as the justification for question's treatment. This is nothing but issue advocacy. And (maybe) it would be ok if it were done by the participants. But, in both cases, it was blessed by the moderators. I am sure they will make claims that they have supporters of various political sides, but their inability to stay objective and their very strong tilt towards one political side makes the whole premise of this site questionable.