The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren’t just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You’re actually right. They didn’t use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They’re just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.
Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
“States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.
The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren’t just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
There’s no mental gymnastics in this one. You just don’t agree with them.
Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You’re actually right. They didn’t use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They’re just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.
Yea, i mean, if you can’t read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they’re not the same. So…
Dumb point.
What? I didn’t conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.
Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
“States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod