5 ms·
> Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act. Couldn't the Supreme Court declare the test unconstitutional?
by tom_mellior 7y ago
> Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act.
Couldn't the Supreme Court declare the test unconstitutional?
- mentat 7y agoOn what basis?
- tom_mellior 7y agoBeing locked up at work without compensation. I guess the Constitution's "involuntary servitude" wording was meant for other contexts (actual 24/7 slavery), but this still seems like a basic human rights violation. But maybe the US Supreme Court doesn't view itself as a human rights court, so I don't know. That's why I asked.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoThat simply isn't how the Supreme (or any) court works. Perhaps there is a servitude issue at hand, but that is not the argument that the plaintiff made.
- tom_mellior 7y agoSo what you're saying is that this is exactly how the Supreme Court works if someone comes and makes an appropriate argument?