Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vwb2022 t1_j9kecro wrote

Ars Technica is reporting that it doesn't look like the oral arguments went well for the plaintiffs and that the justices seem to view it more of a problem with the legislation itself (a Congress problem), rather than interpretation of the legislation (a Court problem).


bohreffect t1_j9kkdrp wrote

You can safely bet most rulings from a conservative court will be "Congress needs to make a law"


Youvebeeneloned t1_j9km8vb wrote

Except when it requires them to overturn law for multiple decades...


bohreffect t1_j9kqwtr wrote

Usually as the result of "congress needs to create new legislation for this to be constitutional"


Youvebeeneloned t1_j9ksrpm wrote

Except when we go reinterpreting the constitution to be what is constitution despite very clear caselaw that says the constitutional is clear on what is allowed like what happened with the First Amendment and prayer in school.


We can go all day about this man... the constitution is clearly being reinterpreted by "originalists" who are anything but. Its a tale as old as time and something that even in the early 19 century was rejected as "originalism" goes against the clear intent of the constitution.


patricide1st t1_j9l0t4d wrote

I think the person you are arguing with is describing reality, not endorsing it.


bohreffect t1_j9l9eb2 wrote

It's amazing how quickly people impute value judgement.


Delightful_Debutant t1_j9oczju wrote

Happened to me in another post. We have quick to react people, unthinking people, and disingenuous people. None of those people are who I want informing my opinon or others. So I see it as a blessing. You can block the jerks and eventually have a better experience.


bohreffect t1_j9ktmj8 wrote

I'm not disputing this?

I'm literally just taking the stance of "if you're taking bets on the current Justice cohort"


Real-Problem6805 t1_j9oe038 wrote

No dear boy it's being read literally with the original intent behind it as written


wbsgrepit t1_j9l4e54 wrote

that only flies on topics that have not been upheld a dozen times over 50 years before this seated court. When they revisit extremely well established and reaffirmed law and conflict clear stare decisis it is something totally different.


Maximus0314 t1_j9outq9 wrote

And they would be correct. Supreme Court should not be creating law only interpreting it.


Zetavu t1_j9oi9bs wrote

Right, headline is misleading and clickbait, this is already old news.