3 ms·

They could rule the law to be unconstitutional. And they would do just that.

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• bpodgursky 4y ago
  It is not at all obvious that this is true. I think it's highly unlikely given that the federal government has almost unrestricted ability to pass laws about personal rights (either strictly or in practice, see the federal drinking age of 21, smoking, etc). Even if it was, there's no reason not to test it.
  • Duwensatzaj 4y ago
    It’s not unrestricted. For example, drinking age is not federally set for the states. But states that don’t set their drinking age to 21 lose 8% of their highway funding. By now, every state is in compliance, but some held out for years, and they could decide to change it in the future and forfeit the money.
  • bandyaboot 4y ago
    I agree that it’s not obvious that such a law would actually be unconstitutional. I just think this court has become an unapologetically partisan body.