• SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, he’s literally not. That’s the whole point of the ruling.

    What he did was deemed “illegal” by the court, which means he can’t do it…

    • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What? I didn’t conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.

              • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “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.

                  • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well, you clearly aren’t capable, because you think these two cases are the same and they’re not.

                    You can repeat that ad nauseam, and it still won’t be true.

                    Just say you’re upset at the ruling, and you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond that and move on.