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.
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
Removed by mod
Removed by mod