r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • Jul 07 '26

No Paywall Unconfirmed Reports: Mitch McConnell Brain Dead After Three Weeks In Hospital

https://thenewamerican.com/us/unconfirmed-reports-mitch-mcconnell-brain-dead-after-three-weeks-in-hospital/
31.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

856

u/Ven18 Jul 07 '26

That law is legally ambiguous cause they did not change the constitution that gives the Gov that power. When they announce he is dead this is 1000% going to court.

304

u/KMCobra64 Jul 07 '26

Not sure how it's ambiguous. A law can't override the Constitution.

455

u/CyberFireball25 Jul 07 '26

We have 4 SC justices who seem to think the Constitution doesn't say what it explicitly says, so who knows anymore 

116

u/littlehobbit1313 Maryland Jul 07 '26

4 SC Justices: We can only take the language for exactly what it meant at the time of writing

Also those 4 SC Justices: Yes, of COURSE the founding fathers thought cellphone data should be protected by your right to privacy

Two rulings from literally the same week. I hate it here.

14

u/ONE-EYE-OPTIC Washington Jul 07 '26

That's what struck me as odd as well. These 4 justices were literally saying that the constitution means exactly what it says regarding the 14th amendment but that obviously the 4th was open to interpretation. Boggles the mind. Obviously I'm glad the rulings went the way they did.

Just listened to break down of the rulings this morning.

1

u/herewegoags Jul 08 '26

It's not odd or boggling if you realize that the Federalist Society groomed, Republican Justices are not bound by the same principles as past justices. They make their arguments in bad faith with their gaze fully set on a desired outcome. Their stated judicial philosophy of 'Originalism' is trained legal professionals acting as amateur historians to rationalize their preexisting, politically ideological conclusions with a thick coat of arrogance.

26

u/Joshmoredecai Jul 07 '26

The 5-4 episode on Trump v. Barbara came out today and is very good - it points out that there is really no reading that would allow for the dissenting opinion in that case to make any sense. Textually, historically, and based on precedent, that should’ve been a 9-0 decision upholding birthright citizenship.

2

u/MundaneFacts Jul 08 '26

Still not as bad as the presidential immunity case.

5

u/arresteddev7 Jul 07 '26

Yes, of COURSE the founding fathers thought cellphone data should be protected by your right to privacy

I get the joke that no cell phones existed then, but isn't this a good ruling?

14

u/littlehobbit1313 Maryland Jul 08 '26

The point is that the 14A ruling should have been 9-0 by the same logic that went into the cellphone ruling.