• whoelectroplateuntil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean, the whole argument hinges on the fact that the procedures around Section 3 are ambiguous, but clearly since states haven’t tried to do it themselves before, that means they obviously don’t have the authority. So, the precedent exists not because it has actually been set, but because it can be inferred to exist by the fact that it hasn’t been set.

    May as well have signed it in crayon, too. OH WAIT THEY DIDN’T SIGN IT

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      It doesn’t really make any sense, the SCOTUS expects congress to vote on enforcing laws that they passed 150 years ago every time the issue comes up? Why? They already voted.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Many of there recent ruling use that logic, like the epa one that says the must be hyper specific. Ending the ablity of the government to functio is the core goal of republican party.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          This is a bit more than just that, though, it was a 9-0 ruling. There really is no more faith to be had in the court as a whole.