> If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law

> If it was such a cut and dry, disingenuous case then the supreme court would not have agreed to hear it. I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law is fixed. I just find this current angle of attack really disheartening and insincere, but the law is about making a persuasive case to the appropriate audience, at the appropriate time. The Court hears lots of things that I'd argue it has no business in hearing, but that is its prerogative and what it chooses to hear depends on the the makeup of the Court at the time the case is presented. This case is a vehicle for the Alliance Defending Freedom to use to further their goals because they believe the Court will rule in a way that is sympathetic to their cause. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. I'm not judging them for doing that, it's the nature of the game. The legal argument they're making for it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. > It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases. The SCOTUS is 9 people in a conference room deciding what cases to hear. Of course, it's not _that_ simplistic, but there isn't some state machine here that determines ripeness, mootness, etc. Everyone in the court ascribes to a different jurisprudence (e.g. not everyone in the Court believes in stare decisis, not everyone cares for originalism, etc) and everyone has different motivations. Cases are selected in the pursuit of those goals by whatever happens to be the majority. I personally dislike the increasing use of the Court to answer what are ultimately political questions. It erodes the legitimacy of the Court and causes it to inherently appear more partisan as it takes on divisive cases.