Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RSquared t1_j9kpaun wrote

Reply to comment by johndoe30x1 in Supreme Court sides with Arizona death row inmate seeking to challenge sentence in federal court by AudibleNod

It's an even more interesting ruling because the Arizona Supreme Court basically "nuh uh'd" an earlier USSC ruling under the claim that the ruling wasn't sufficiently different from precedent, even though the USSC ruling had negated an earlier, similar ruling elsewhere. AZSC said, "oh, it's not substantial because it modifies state law not federal law", and USSC just smacked them down on it. I'm honestly surprised that there was a -4 in this one because even the conservative justices probably don't want state courts negating their rulings.

83

PEVEI t1_j9l2qs2 wrote

Well you have to remember who those four are, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett, who are all basically human ham steaks.

48

justforthearticles20 t1_j9ldfub wrote

Those four just sit there sounding like Beevis saying "Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill"

19

PEVEI t1_j9lf4jo wrote

Tbh Coney Barrett looks like the sort who chants that when someone cuts her off in traffic!

Cold DEAD eyes.

8

SanityIsOptional t1_j9ntcng wrote

Wait, Kavanaugh was the dissenter? Really? I figured it would have been Gorsuch of the 5.

2

DrakeBurroughs t1_j9oihq0 wrote

No, this tracks. Kavanaugh seems to generally be in favor of USSC rules overriding states. This tracks. What’s surprising is that Gorsuch didn’t join the majority. That strikes me as odd.

4

MadDjinn t1_j9l2ncf wrote

When you’re not in it for the law or reality, it’s fine to let State courts overrule the SC when the SC got forced to make a decision that could hamstring all states. Just the states that care about the rule of law would be hamstrung and your buddies won’t be use they’ll claim state law is differently experienced.

No worries though, if a state court said roe v wade still existed because the SC is compromised, they’d still pop back in to stop that.

10

DrakeBurroughs t1_j9oj520 wrote

Well, they’d have to, to be fair. Roe v. Wade gave women a federal right to have an abortion, in any state. When they struck Roe v. Waid down, the right to have an abortion just fell back to the states. In your example, if, say, New York argued Roe v. Wade still existed, would they be arguing that it existed in Texas? New Yorkers still have the right to abortion, but no state court in New York would be allowed to rule that Texas citizens also have that right.

1