The courts are ALL ABOUT technical justification dude. You can’t just “it’s the right thing to do” in court.
Ackshually the president didn’t have standing to make this ruling.
ACKTUALLY ACKTUALLY the states didn’t even have standing to bring the case.
The problem is that the Supreme Court followed the rules when it came to something that fit their agenda, but ignored it when it didn’t.
If the SC had followed the technical details like they should have, then the Presidential ruling would have stood until or unless an injured party brought suit.
You can’t just “it’s the right thing to do” in court.
How about outside the court? How about in discussions about the ruling? People are using those technicalities to justify the “rightness” of the decision and its effects. That’s the bullshit bad faith I’m talking about.
ITT: A bunch of people “WELL ACKSHUALLY-ing” technical justifications for this decision. Pretty gross.
The courts are ALL ABOUT technical justification dude. You can’t just “it’s the right thing to do” in court.
Ackshually the president didn’t have standing to make this ruling.
ACKTUALLY ACKTUALLY the states didn’t even have standing to bring the case.
The problem is that the Supreme Court followed the rules when it came to something that fit their agenda, but ignored it when it didn’t.
If the SC had followed the technical details like they should have, then the Presidential ruling would have stood until or unless an injured party brought suit.
How about outside the court? How about in discussions about the ruling? People are using those technicalities to justify the “rightness” of the decision and its effects. That’s the bullshit bad faith I’m talking about.
technically correct is the best kind of correct.