• @aesthelete
    link
    9
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This stuff is definitely fringe but not crazy, I look at it as people confronting the system and demanding either America overturning many troubled past transgressions or give them the benefit of the disparate treatment.

    Disagree there, it’s definitely crazy. If you’re starting to think this stuff makes actual sense and (more importantly) that you want to start testing the legal system using it, I suggest you seek some help from a mental health professional instead.

    • @Spiralvortexisalie
      link
      English
      -110 months ago

      If you read the sources or even my closing line, I specifically disclaimed it’s usage, but at the end of the day the position was defeated 6-2 at the supreme court, with the two in dissent wholly agreeing with the argument put forth. Essentially arguing this in good faith would be no different than seeking an appeal or rehearing in other cases. It is the equivalent of calling everyone who tried to overturn Roe v Wade (a 7-2 decision) crazy because they lost one case. Some would argue the side against Roe is winning right now, so maybe its not even a safe bet to say nonwhites aren’t automatically citizens by birth.

      • @aesthelete
        link
        210 months ago

        It is the equivalent of calling everyone who tried to overturn Roe v Wade (a 7-2 decision) crazy because they lost one case.

        I wouldn’t call them crazy because they lost one case, but rather because they believe that a cluster of cells is a person. But that’s getting off topic, because most of the legal “theories” behind sovcit have been thoroughly adjudicated and found to be entirely baseless.