3 ms·
From a purely meta point of view: This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court i
by jfengel 3y ago
From a purely meta point of view:
This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Republican, it's likely to be struck down.
The actual reasoning comes later. Something-something-Federalist-Papers-something. I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right.
I know a great many lawyers, of both parties, who have more respect for the Supreme Court than I do. They are more informed and better educated than I am, so you should take my cynicism with a grain of salt. But in my experience, treating the Supreme Court as a partisanship machine yields extremely accurate predictions.
- gamblor956 3y agoI'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.
- VS1999 3y agoI'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.
- gamblor956 3y agoThe 3/5th clause has been used by prior SCOTUSs to justify decisions, so it is not a gotcha. It's history... On that note, Alito and Thomas had to use a pre-U.S. colonial law as their grounds to overturn Roe, so there is no limit to how far they will go to use "orignalism" to further their ideology.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago>constitution was not written for slaves That's the point.