• SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yea, i mean, if you can’t read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they’re not the same. So…

    Dumb point.

    • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What? I didn’t conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.

      • SmurfDotSee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.

        But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.

        • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.

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

            Well, you clearly aren’t capable, because you think these two cases are the same and they’re not.

            You can repeat that ad nauseam, and it still won’t be true.

            Just say you’re upset at the ruling, and you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond that and move on.