SCOTUS: there’s nothing in the rule book that says a dog can’t play basketball
CITIZENS: what about the constitutional amendment that specifically bans dogs from playing basketball
SCOTUS: no that’s about something else
HOMER SIMPSON: You don't win friends with salad!
SAM ALITO: The First Amendment says you have to be my friend if I offer you salad.
HOMER: But you're just eating the steak I grilled and not even touching your salad!
ALITO: That's not very friendly, Homer.
"Okay fine, there *is* a rule that says dogs can't play basketball, but if we enforce that rule, the other team might call *you* a dog, and then we'd have no idea who's a dog or not! We need the league to make regulations on who is and isn't a dog first, sorry."
The funny thing is that this wasn't the usual SCOTUS abuse of power nobody actually gave them, this was a refusal to use the power they have.
The ruling basically says "this decision is going to cause trouble for everyone making it, we want no part of this."
Destroying the foundation of a nation brick by brick, and then all of a sudden realizing that your soft squishy brains are also susceptible to falling masonry.
Folks who delved into the hastily-delivered pdf of the decision found that it wasn't scrubbed properly. Originally it wasn't unanimous. Sotomayor authored a concurrence in part and a dissent in part. It's unclear what kind of horse trading got the libs to ratchet it back.
That was more a matter of preserving the illusion of legitimacy. There would be literally no way to have a dissent of any kind and still make it look like SCOTUS cared about the constitution at all.
They are basically aghast at a state court having the audacity to correctly apply the Constitution.
It was the right call. You'll struggle to find a credible lawyer who would say otherwise.
The distressing thing is the reasons they came up with. Like, violating due process wasn't a good enough reason, they have to make up bullshit.
An individual referee can't exclude a player just because they're a dog. The league's board of directors has the right to vote to exclude a player, but only after the finals are played.
Yes, the rules say that dogs cannot play basketball, but in order for that to have effect, the league needs to authorize a separate review and enforcement process.
We cant just let each team decide for themselves which players are, or are not, in fact, dogs.
I feel like the way the decision was written, if Trump wins, states could still refuse to recognize him as President, maybe, though they can't stop him from running. ?
Yeah, I noticed that the "devolution of powers!!!" bloc from RvW is suddenly real quiet when it's a power they don't personally want the states to have.
"Biden is not securing the southern border and some of the people coming in are terrorists! He's giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, which makes him an insurrectionist, so he is barred from the ballot in TX, OK, TN, FL..."
You KNOW the Republicans would do this!
While I know Trump is a guilty POS, the issue is that many states are run by his corrupt party and will make up reasons to remove Biden for insurrection as they already accused him of it, and he's never done it. Just making the word meaningless is their game. Corruption, their methodology
I desperately want an absurd lawsuit that takes advantage of the equally absurd readings SCOTUS has been lately (since they're fairly predictable) to force some ridiculous law that's more joke than crippling. Change of pace, ya know?
SCOTUS: Also, dogs can play anything they want, especially if it involves guns, and states can do nothing about it. Unless they're women dogs, then they can play basketball only if their husbands allow them. But if there are dishes in the sink, it's up to the state to decide.
