2 ms·
That's the same kind of argument I'm talking about, though. If you just frame it as "to advance their conservative political goals" then you fail to fully under
by lolinder 2y ago
That's the same kind of argument I'm talking about, though. If you just frame it as "to advance their conservative political goals" then you fail to fully understand this court and will continue to be surprised by what they decide.
This court has more than once ruled in a direction that conservatives would not like because the letter of the law required them to do so. Those instances just fail to make headlines and draw ire on social media.
- jhp123 2y agocontinue to be surprised? I have not been surprised by this court whatsoever
- TylerE 2y agoYes, it's quite simple. Whatever ruling helps the powerful is the one they make. It's incredibly blatant regardless of recent (post 1980s) manufactured from whole cloth "originalism", which is in sharp contrast with the actual views of the founders who expected the constitution to be rapidly and frequently amended to account for new factors.
- lolinder 2y ago> the founders who expected the constitution to be rapidly and frequently amended Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The Constitution spells out that any amendment requires first an agreement of 2/3s of both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Even back when there were 13 states I'm having trouble imagining them setting it up like that if they were targeting rapid and frequent iteration. If that was their intention they obviously did a very bad job setting it up for that.