i would also say, in terms of the itching to get this case, the question i am getting these days, chris, is just and we just do this with a cake shop guy like five years ago in massachusetts cake shop case? what i need to point out is that in 2018, and 2021, a court repeatedly dealt with free exercise exemptions from antidiscrimination laws, and ruled that religious objections favor, but did not put the stake in the heart of what conservatives want to get rid of which is the smith case in 1990. autumn, let me start with youįeature rather than a bug. michael walmart's presidency of the britain senator justice at new york university, he's the author of the new book out this month titled, the super majority, how the supreme court divided america. he's author of bestselling books include, covering in the salt on our civil, rights with justice - sided interest and financially.
MAGA BUTTON MEME GENERATOR PROFESSIONAL
who elected them? what's more, you are forgiven for thinking the whole thing is corrupt and illegitimate, and wondering how long exactly this can continue without some seismic reform? > he's a professional constitutional law at new york university, was a faculty director of the melter center for diversity, inclusion, and when. at this point, you are well within your rights to start asking, who elected these people? if they're not bmi precedent, if they're not bound by disputes, and standing, and all the trappings of judging and they can to say, like i don't like this law, i don't get policy. Robes on the trump supreme court are granting themselves the authority to govern as a kind of unaccountable super legislature. you, state a missouri, run by republicans, do not like the policy and want to use the > whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's a question of state politics? they are here because why? because they are not injured, because there is no injury, because there's no actual dispute. mohela doesn't need to be here because the state has the authority to speak for that, and that brings me - to > what in the state just make mohela come then? it mohela is an arm of the state, what are you to strong-arm mohela and say you've got to pursue the suit? > your honor, that is a question of state politics. and don't just listen to me on this, here is oral arguments, justice amy cody aaron actually acid or from a zuri are going to end the debt relief, what is up with mohela? where are they, why are they not here? > do you want to address why mohela is not here? > mohela it's not here comes the state is asserting its interests. That mohela would stand to make more money if the debt relief plant goes through, otherwise known as the opposite of an injury. taxpayers, we are injured, we are on the hook for. now, the holder of the debt is the federal government, right? the people whose deaths are canceled, well, they're endured their beneficiaries, right? so who is injured here? well, you could argue that the taxpayer, us as u.s. president biden wanted to relieve up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt for some borrowers, 20,000 for others. but on this another one, there's also the student loan case where, once again, wait for it, nobody has been injured. that is the policy outcome they wanted from the beginning, it is whether k scott to them.
they want to undermine colorado's antidiscrimination law, making it easier for religious conservatives to discriminate against gay people. because the conservative majority does not care about the actual facts, and they do not care about actually judging. And yet today, the supreme court ruled in lori smith's favor on this concert, hypothetical satisfaction electoral dispute.
0 kommentar(er)
