๐ณ๐ฑ
Well we are absolutely fucked, there foes the fourth and second amendments right out the window.
@freemo this seems positive - like the SC is taking the case to reverse the lower Court's unconstitutional ruling.
@justin Can't imagine why you would assume that, how do you know they arent taking the case to uphold the lower courts rulling?
@freemo why would they take it at all in that case? Just let it stand.
@justin Huh, they do it all the time (take a case and rule the case valid). It is just as common for them to rule in either direction.
@freemo ...but if they didn't hear it, it would be an indication that they are okay with the lower court's decision and don't feel the need to take action. That seems like it would be much worse.
@justin Again, no, they take cases all the time (just as often as the contrary) when they agree with the case...
Why do you think the supreme court takes so many other cases that they wind up rulling in favor of the lower court's decision? If your reasoning made any sense such cases would be rare and they arent.
1. They choose not to hear a case. The issue is decided and the lower court's ruling is now precedent.
2. They choose to hear a case and they may rule to either uphold or reverse the lower court's decision.
I'll take 2 every time if I disagree with the lower court (which I do in this case).
@justin ok so your saying now that they may rule either way?
By the way just to be clear #1 means the lower courts rulling is **only** precedent in 1/5th of the USA and it doesnt become precedences throughout the entire court system unless and until the supreme court hears it (which by the way is why they often take cases where they are likely to uphold the lower courts ruling ).
@freemo of course. But the fact that they're taking it indicates there is a chance they will disagree. If they didn't take it, there would be no chance at all.
