I’m not saying that. I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said th

I’m not saying that. I’m saying you’re presenting an amateur-hour legal theory on why our highest court shouldn’t have taken the case, because Congress said they couldn’t. Even though there are constitutional restrictions to when Congress can make such exemptions, and the SCOTUS can rule on them as they please (in practice). Your argument to the contrary is about as interesting as Soverign Citizen understandings of law. I suppose we’re still ruled by George III and have been in a 248-year state of rebellion.