• 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.

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

                Well, you clearly aren’t capable, because you think these two cases are the same and they’re not.

                You can repeat that ad nauseam, and it still won’t be true.

                Just say you’re upset at the ruling, and you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond that and move on.

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

                    How do you not get that they AREN’T the same logic…

                    You keep insisting it’s the same logic, and it’s not. I even bolded the pertinent part for you that explains why it’s NOT the same logic.

                    Jfc.