4 ms·
Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be rep
by wbsss4412 4y ago
Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress.
Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?
- toyg 4y ago> such a law would be superfluous Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? The books are full of them. > such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. Politicians are ready to go with the flow... see for example gay marriage in the UK, which was cautiously introduced by Labour as a separate formulation and then brought into full existence, with great fanfare, by a Conservative Party that had been staunchly against it for decades prior.
- wbsss4412 4y ago> Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater? > Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.