• Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    If something is unconstitutional then it’s unconstitutional. I don’t understand why they’re creating more unnecessary work so now party A complains, courts say ok it’s not right, but now party B has to go through the same process, etc etc etc… so now we have to have essentially 50 individual cases to go over the same thing when each state encounters this issue unless they can manage to create a class lawsuit out of it.

    To my cynical mind it seems like excessive delay on otherwise straightforward cases was the intended outcome.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      21 hours ago

      That is the intent, to make it harder for any challenges to Republican fascism. If a case comes up that would benefit them, then they will do it as a exception, becsuse they are hypocrites.

      Basically they have ruled that rights only count in the scope they want, and by default it is limited. Fascist laws and executive orders can be enforced nationwide and only challenged locally.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Unless I’m getting my right wing “shadowy organizations” mixed up, it was the now well known heritage foundation that created the short list of judges for Republicans to choose from for something like the last 40 years, so these are all their judges, and looking at project 2025 we know what the heritage foundation wants for the country…

        It’s not rainbows and ponies that’s for sure.

      • thedruid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Our bureaucracy was already over taxed. This grinds much of it to a halt. Which is all they need

      • Zenith@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        This goes all the way back to Lincoln who’s primary reasoning for deciding to start a civil war was we couldn’t let states decide if they would or would not be slave states, slavery was wrong this isn’t an option - now “slavery” has a bigger and more nuisanced meaning but I essentially his decision to disallow states to choose on such important subjects, to not be united is being removed

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They also hope to commit “paper terrorism” like the sovereign citizen movement, which is weirdly similar to the Moldbug/Peter Thiel plans, to choke out the US justice system with paper work and grind it to a halt while maintaining plausible deniability on their end

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It’s exactly what they did by killing chevron deference. Instead of experts in a given field, working in a relevant department, clarifying how a given vague rule should be applied in individual cases, now each case has to go to the courts so a judge can decide whether XYZ regulation should apply in areas they have zero knowledge of.

        A huge win for corporate interests as delay delay delay helps them continue to violate vague rules.

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      If something is unconstitutional then it’s unconstitutional.

      Correct. But, perhaps sadly, I’m reminded of the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when Will is complaining about rules and Jack says the only rules that matter are what a man can do and what a man can’t do. The Constitution only matters if we have enough people willing and able to enforce it. And if the Trump administrations have taught us anything, it’s that we need every fucking assumption to be litigated.