• Deft@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    wrong

    The president acted as he did and the system of checks and balances played a role.

    He is absolutely allowed to do that. It is not “illegal”

    • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, he’s literally not. That’s the whole point of the ruling.

      What he did was deemed “illegal” by the court, which means he can’t do it…

      • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren’t just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.

          • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You’re actually right. They didn’t use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They’re just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.

            • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea, i mean, if you can’t read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they’re not the same. So…

              Dumb point.

              • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                What? I didn’t conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.

                • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.

                  But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.

                  • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He isn’t going to be put in jail or anything no. He attempted to use a power he does not have. If the president wants this program to become a thing, an act of congress is required.