• @beardown@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -3
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    SCOTUS disagrees with you. And their opinion of Constitutional legality is ultimately the only one that has any relevance

    • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      75 months ago

      They haven’t actually issued a ruling at this point. And I don’t have to agree even if they do

      • @beardown@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -25 months ago

        Obviously they haven’t issued an opinion, but their comments today make it clear what they’re going to do

        My point is that you can’t put forth any authoritative argument on this matter when SCOTUS is just going to rule for Trump. And they ultimately decide what the Constitution means and does not mean.

        Legally, they are sovereign over the interpretation of all aspects of the constitution. So saying that they’re being hypocritical or are ignoring precedent isn’t really relevant. They’re allowed to do that.

        • @Shyfer@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          Legally even that is pretty dubious. Didn’t they just randomly give themselves that power once and we all agreed to let them have it?

          • @beardown@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            It is true that the Constitution does not explicitly grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review. SCOTUS granted itself that power in Marbury v Madison, which was 225+ years ago

            Libs should bring that up more often tbh. As should textualists, tbh