In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely.
The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along.
The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US.
Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.
It's never new information. Reality has been a harsh, harsh mistress for decades and decades now.
It's what makes debating with ideological idealists so contentious IMO. There's no way to convince them to settle for anything other than "what's right", even if the only way to get to that state is to first settle for gradually less-wrong states in between.
Even RMS had the pragmatism to start developing GNU on a proprietary OS with proprietary tools.
You cannot overcome Might by convincing it to be Right. Not reliably.
You overcome Might with Might. If you are Right, that actually increases your strength. But you still have to win. You still have to fight. That means strategy and preparation and readiness for loss.
Anyone thinking anything else isn't thinking, they're dreaming. They're going lose, and the higher the stakes the more they'll get hurt.
Which brings even more headaches when it comes to US (hegemonic) supremacy. Who would disempower them? What would they replace it with? The sort of people who could responsibly do this are not the sort of people who would push it forward with enough force to do it successfully.
