|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Moore v Harper 1
#27844409 - 06/30/22 11:10 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So, this case could, seriously, end democracy as we know it.
Remember when SCOTUS declared that federal courts have no jurisdiction over gerrymandering? This case will, potentially, declare that state courts have no jurisdiction to stop gerrymandering, even if it's in the state constitution.
Thomas, alito, gorsuch, and kavanaugh have made statements in favor of banning state courts from being able to rule on redistricting, even if it's blatantly against the state's constitution.
State legislatures would basically be exempt from judicial oversight when it comes to drawing districts.
And, probably, other things as well, in the future.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27844490 - 07/01/22 01:02 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see how they are going to twist the Constitution to take that power away from the states.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27844688 - 07/01/22 07:50 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
They wouldn't take any power away from states, my understanding is that they would simply take away the state courts' power to interpret and strike down any laws concerning elections.
Since the constitution, to my knowledge, doesn't mention courts being able to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering or other election laws, it seems that a strict textualist philosophy makes this a no-brainer.
And SCOTUS has, in recent times, used strict textualism, when it was convenient.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27844876 - 07/01/22 11:34 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You seem to be operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution GIVES power to the federal government and takes it from the States. The underlying principle is that the states have all of the power, and gave some up to form the union. As a result, states have general police power as to everything EXCEPT those things the Constitution either reserves the power to the fed or denies the states the power. The federal government has no police power except for those things the Constitution gives them power over.
In other words, the SCOTUS would have to find that the states lack the power because of one of two reasons: 1) The federal government has exclusive power over the subject matter (this has already been found to be untrue in this case), or 2) There is some fundamental right found in the bill of rights that precludes the states from exercising power over the subject matter.
There are very few things that fall in this second category. These are things like speech protection, bear arms protection, due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
As to whether they can somehow take the power from state courts independent of taking the power from the states, this is an absurd notion which has never been a part of the law anywhere in the U.S. The only thing that comes close is when the SCOTUS determines an issue to be a non justiciable political question, but the SCOTUS can only determine that for itself and federal courts. It has no power to decide this for state courts.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 19 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845149 - 07/01/22 03:03 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I don't see how they are going to twist the Constitution to take that power away from the states.
Especially when they’re angling to rule that the establishment clause can’t force states to participate in federal elections.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
|
This was better described in an article I read, but the constitution says that "state legislatures" have the power to run elections. Until 2015, a state legislature was seen as the summation of state government, including the governor, the legislature, and the courts.
However, a strict textual reading could interpret that as, literally, state legislatures. As in, only the legislature of the state government gets a say in elections, and the executive and judicial branch cannot intervene.
This would be a pretty novel reading, I'll admit, and would also be SCOTUS essentially putting themselves on the path of irrelevance, but we've had some pretty novel rulings lately.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 19 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845197 - 07/01/22 03:33 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah that’s true, honestly have no idea where they’ll draw the line or where the public stands on where the breaking point is.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
|
I was reading some stuff from shivas.wisdom's anarchist library and I came across a line the other day that stuck with me:
Quote:
A true revolutionary must first accept that he is a Doomed man.
And it's easy to say "I'm doomed", but it's a very different thing to actually accept. When people say that, it's always a joke. It's never an actual acceptance of being doomed.
What that means is that you, fundamentally, cannot be a part of the world that you seek to create. You must become the monster that you seek to vanquish, but you will fight for the other side. The worst part is that you will never get the rewards that the monsters of the status quo get. It's like special forces--they do the fucked up dirty shit, but they get medals for it. As a revolutionary, you must do the same fucked up dirty shit, but you will never get a medal, or acknowledgement, or anything of the sort, as you do not have the backing of a state.
That is different from simply giving your life to the cause. Anybody can give their life, but you need to go further. You need to give your humanity to the cause. You must become the thing that goes bump in the night, the thing that makes others afraid of the dark. For the vast majority of people, that is a lot worse than death.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845218 - 07/01/22 03:48 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's an absurd reading. State courts are created by state legislatures. The legislature of any state has the power limit the state court jurisdiction. What you're suggesting is that the Supreme Court could rule that the legislature has the power to run elections, but does not have the power to appoint courts to settle disputes under those election laws. such a ruling, setting aside it's clear unconstitutionality, would mean that the legislature itself would have to make decisions when a dispute arises.
With the number of election law disputes that occur every year, the legislature wouldn't have time to do anything else
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845222 - 07/01/22 03:50 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Correct. Thus giving total authority over elections to the state legislatures, the majority of which are controlled by the GOP.
Again, my argument is not that this would be absurd, my argument is that the absurd has happened a lot recently.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845227 - 07/01/22 03:52 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But they already have total control. A state legislature could at any time take away the state court's jurisdiction to hear election law disputes.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845229 - 07/01/22 03:53 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
For that matter, Congress could completely eliminate the federal court system if they wanted to.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845258 - 07/01/22 04:08 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Could they? That seems like one of those things that would require an amendment.
Further, there is the political aspect of this. A state legislature dissolving the court system would be...well, a giant red flag for a lot of people. I think this is happening because the big showy coup attempt was an abject failure. As much as the GOP and Trump wish it weren't true, the masses are not on their side, that has been made apparent since Jan 6th.
To me, this feel like a sneaky coup attempt via the courts, which are still controlled by the GOP. Since the people are not on their side, they can't do anything so obvious that people notice again.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845265 - 07/01/22 04:11 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27845284 - 07/01/22 04:17 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Welp, then see point 2: optics.
After all, perception is more important than truth.
|
asterix
L7
Registered: 12/26/21
Posts: 188
Last seen: 3 months, 18 days
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27845658 - 07/01/22 08:00 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846184 - 07/02/22 08:52 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
For that matter, even judicial review by SCOTUS is just a courtesy/convention conjured from thin air and extended by the good graces of congress
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
I don’t want to live in the 18th or 19th century
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846387 - 07/02/22 11:52 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, me either? I guess right now might be the time to point out that the convention of judicial review by SCOTUS was imagined and implemented in 1803...
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
1803 occurred in the 19th century
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Enlil said: Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
For that matter, even judicial review by SCOTUS is just a courtesy/convention conjured from thin air and extended by the good graces of congress
Not exactly, but it is interesting to ponder what SCOTUS could do to stop Congress if they decided to ignore them.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846420 - 07/02/22 12:18 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Isn’t the entire system “completely a creature of statute”?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846426 - 07/02/22 12:25 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Depends on what you mean by "entire system." Certainly, federalism isn't a creature of statute. When I read "entire system," I assume you mean federalism. So...I guess the answer is no.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846429 - 07/02/22 12:27 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The constitution is just a bunch of statutes.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846436 - 07/02/22 12:34 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You're thoroughly confused. The Constitution is completely different from a statute. That's the point of a constitution, after all. Statutes are decided by legislators who respond to public desires. A constitution is there to set boundaries to statutes in an attempt to reduce the effect of tyranny of the majority.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846446 - 07/02/22 12:46 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes? Legislators who were mindful of their own interests as much they were of public desires? I don’t see why the constitution needs to be treated like a holy writ. What happens when the minority becomes the one who poses the threat of tyranny against the majority (which seems to be the case 99.9% of the time throughout history, at least as far as a ruling minority subjects its accompanying majority to statutes)?
Edited by Cymbal (07/02/22 12:49 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846455 - 07/02/22 12:53 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cymbal said: 1803 occurred in the 19th century
Yes. Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make when you said that you didn't want to live in the 18th or 19th centuries.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846460 - 07/02/22 12:56 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cymbal said: How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes?
No, and I'm sorry the educational system failed you.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846461 - 07/02/22 12:57 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The Constitution of the U.S. is extremely malleable and has been amended many times. This is fundamentally different from how people treat things considered "holy writ".
Of course the framers had their own interests in mind, thus the need for ongoing amendments
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846467 - 07/02/22 01:03 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Cymbal said: 1803 occurred in the 19th century
Yes. Maybe I didn't understand the point you were trying to make when you said that you didn't want to live in the 18th or 19th centuries.
Yeah, I don’t want to live like that
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Cymbal said: How did the constitution get there in the first place? Wasn’t it composed by a body of legislators who were, in essence, creating statutes?
No, and I'm sorry the educational system failed you.
The framers weren’t legislators legislating?
Edited by Cymbal (07/02/22 01:06 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846507 - 07/02/22 01:54 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Not a fan of electric light or communication?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
Forward forever, backwards never
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846521 - 07/02/22 02:04 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That's cool.
Did you have a position that you're able to articulate regarding judicial review as it applies to the OP or not really?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
Not as long as we are playing games with words and confining ourselves to rigid paradigms. The American situation will continue to deteriorate. Forecast is great conflagration
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,488
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846541 - 07/02/22 02:24 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Right, as long as you're going to play games I won't be able to understand what you're trying to say.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
|
Gasoline? Check Matches? Check
 
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846571 - 07/02/22 03:04 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Enlil wants to believe that there won’t be any practical applications of these judgments. He attempts to conjure them away with legalese. “Nothing to see here, guys.” The reason he does this is because the law is his religion, his god. He needs to keep faith. The dogma of his profession is the most concrete and stable thing in his life, the only aspect of this world that still makes sense. If he admitted to himself that the law was just another perspective, as arbitrary and contingent as all of the others, his sense of meaning would be shattered and he’d have no source to draw upon for hope.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846581 - 07/02/22 03:18 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cymbal said:
The framers weren’t legislators legislating?
No.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846583 - 07/02/22 03:20 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Wizards? Demigods?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846584 - 07/02/22 03:20 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cymbal said: Enlil wants to believe that there won’t be any practical applications of these judgments. He attempts to conjure them away with legalese. “Nothing to see here, guys.” The reason he does this is because the law is his religion, his god. He needs to keep faith. The dogma of his profession is the most concrete and stable thing in his life, the only aspect of this world that still makes sense. If he admitted to himself that the law was just another perspective, as arbitrary and contingent as all of the others, his sense of meaning would be shattered and he’d have no source to draw upon for hope.
Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846587 - 07/02/22 03:22 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cymbal said: Wizards? Demigods?
People. People trying to come up with a plan to form a government unlike anything that preceded it. People trying to appease the individual colonies while at the same time create a functional government with enough power to hold the nation together. They succeeded. You can look back now all you want with a cynical view, but when can't you do that with history?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Cymbal
Kill your idol
Registered: 06/29/22
Posts: 76
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27846611 - 07/02/22 03:36 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
While excessive cynicism may create certain distortions, blind optimism sees nothing.
Very bad things are on the horizon, Enlil.
Buckle up and see you in the next life!
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Cymbal]
#27846684 - 07/02/22 04:34 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What are you even talking about? What optimism?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27847254 - 07/03/22 03:57 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Enlil said: Yes they could. The only court Required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The rest of the federal system is completely a creature of statute.
For that matter, even judicial review by SCOTUS is just a courtesy/convention conjured from thin air and extended by the good graces of congress
Not exactly, but it is interesting to ponder what SCOTUS could do to stop Congress if they decided to ignore them.
I have the distinct feeling that we will find out.
That said, if I was to hazard a guess, SCOTUS would essentially turn to mob enforcement. As they have no actual power, their only fallback is people that agree with their decisions going into the streets and enforcing them as they see fit.
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 48 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27847356 - 07/03/22 07:15 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Some states are talking about ignoring the SCOTUS. I have no idea how that would work. The Court does seem to have gone off the rails, but IDK.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
The idea is absurd. First, it would only apply to federal elections, meaning it would really only apply to the house of representative seats since districting has no bearing on senate or presidential elections. Second, there is zero precedent for the SCOTUS to overturn a state legislature's ability to delegate authority to state court systems to handle disputes. It seems pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain and legal training that this goes far beyond the power given the SCOTUS by Article III.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27847725 - 07/03/22 01:19 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Reframe:
State legislatures take back that power from the courts, and SCOTUS allows it to happen.
And yes, this would apply only to the House. The Senate and the Electoral college already heavily favor republicans. The House is biased in their favor, but not to the extent that the GOP can comfortably win elections/filibuster breaking minority in the Senate without popular support.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27848311 - 07/03/22 09:21 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
State legislatures can take power from the courts at any time. It is a common thing.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 26 minutes
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Enlil]
#27848397 - 07/03/22 10:40 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Normally, this would happen by passing laws, or amending the state constitution, right?
In this case, it seems that the state legislature is asking SCOTUS to allow them to take away the power of the courts to enforce a specific provision of the state constitution in a specific circumstance, without actually changing the constitution. Because it would kind of look bad if they changed the constitution to remove equal protection clauses.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Moore v Harper [Re: Kryptos]
#27848440 - 07/03/22 11:09 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The SCOTUS doesn't have that power.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|