Rebecca Brückmann on Nostr: Quick question for the legal historians, etc.: Did SCOTUS have to take this case in ...
Quick question for the legal historians, etc.: Did SCOTUS have to take this case in the first place? Because the mere propositions made here seem worthy of “LOL, no, are you out of your damn mind?” and not one minute more. (Then again, when has the current SCOTUS ever cared about legal standing if the case served a particular political purpose. Le Sigh. Unreal.)
Published at
2024-04-25 17:02:36Event JSON
{
"id": "c38c8dcc11cd00473918545036fc45fd8c75b33b2d150b825df3cc05d88b79f5",
"pubkey": "b24624377a610cfdb2a6be3f52b6cbe27f1ba376447741b822a020b072b8b60a",
"created_at": 1714057356,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://historians.social/users/historleans/statuses/112332462915024101",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "Quick question for the legal historians, etc.: Did SCOTUS have to take this case in the first place? Because the mere propositions made here seem worthy of “LOL, no, are you out of your damn mind?” and not one minute more. (Then again, when has the current SCOTUS ever cared about legal standing if the case served a particular political purpose. Le Sigh. Unreal.)\n\nhttps://media.historians.social/media_attachments/files/112/332/458/696/599/897/original/91eaebd72521475d.png",
"sig": "f1e7585dda91da6fcbcb84375274c0505bd90902a96b27f3d07b9d0c66757243bd82cfd8078b035d6ea52b01ea238edaf97ef90c6632619f2b2a1c2e472f635b"
}
