• queermunist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are…

    • Elle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals.

      An argument I’ve seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary’s influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn’t put it past them.

      • queermunist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People’s Republic of California then the Court could just say “no but not like that tho” and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn’t help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.