Josh Block: The logic here is apparently that a bunch of bad arguments add up to a good one? Throw everything at the wall and even if none of it sticks by itself, in combination they make a big enough mess to win?

The logic here is apparently that a bunch of bad arguments add up to a good one? Throw everything at the wall and even if none of it sticks by itself, in combination they make a big enough mess to win?

I think they're trying to say that the stuff about Congress needing to act through legislation is part of the holding to foreclose the argument that it's dicta.

(To be clear, it's gratuitous dicta. You can reverse everything the Court says and it would have no effect on the judgment.)

Also “egregiously wrong” dicta at that.

The same move Roberts pulled in NFIB v. Sibelius

I think it’s also an acknowledgment that the argument doesn’t hold water on its own. If it did, then states wouldn’t be able to enforce Section 3 against state officeholders either.

I think they are saying it doesn’t matter if the legislation argument is logical or consistent, and we don’t have to respond to the dissents’ critique, because the argument only applies when we combine it with all the other stuff

Yeah, fair to say that it's doing both things.

MFers said "to provide" and didn't provide. That's like when someone says "that's remarkable," but doesn't otherwise remark

Post