> The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed.
I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
It's effectively saying 'the existence of state laws that attempt to restrict a right, even ones which have been rule unconstitutional, is itself evidence that it's okay for states to impose restrictions on constitutional rights.'
Which seems like a very odd argument to make the day after striking down a 100 year old NY State law restricting gun carry rights on the basis that there's no evidence of a long tradition of such restrictions being passed by states.
tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
It's not a stretch. They are literally "on a whim law makers." They decide what issues they want to take up and change the way they interpret the constitution depending on how they want to rule on an issue. In theory, they could be held in check by congress, but in practice that is impossible. Especially since the justice's are political weapons of congress. There's a reason the supreme court nominations have been huge campaign points for the last few elections. They have basically unchecked power.
> The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. They choose how they want to interpret it depending on how they want to rule. There's no consistency and it's frankly a disgrace. Has been for a while too, this isn't something new to this current court.