No one in the NY courts, federal or state, are interested in abiding by the law. It would already have to be appealed beyond the NY Supreme Court, directly to SCOTUS. To be honest, SCOTUS will likely refuse to even accept it, as they did with Texas v. Pennsylvania. Even if they ruled anything, looked what happened with Bruin. SCOTUS was explicitly denied and ignored, even by other courts.
The side that thinks it's a good thing happens to include the entire population of DC, and the whole Republican establishment and donor class.
There is no other court that can hear matters between states. If the SCOTUS won't hear it, then there is no other recourse but armed conflict.
This single refusal to hear a case is enough to have the court abolished (I am pretty sure the POTUS can do it) and replaced by something else which is then DIRECTED to hear matters between states on every occasion.
BTW I don't see why there are so few SCOTUS judges. It isn't like there are few cases; Perhaps they are too busy legislating from the bench to notice that they are not actually a functioning court?
If the court refuses to hear it, then it is inherently a political matter. It sucks that we can't have the law enforced normally, but that means you have to win the issue politically through getting your faction in and attacking other factions in the system. Armed conflict is still not necessary; and is actually one of the primary goals of the establishment at this case.
Given that the issue was original jurisdiction for SCOTUS, it is an abdication of their responsibility; but contrasted with what they've normally done for the past 200 years (making unchallengeable law that provokes armed conflict because a political solution is no longer possible due to judicial interference), that is at least a workable result for the rest of us.
You don't want there to be lots of SCOTUS judges. You want to keep them very few. The Progressive Left has argued for many decades now that the Senate and SCOTUS should be reformed into being turned into an identical body like the House of Representatives: several hundred purely partisan political individuals elected by a general election. Although the courts are partisan at the moment, there are ways to reform it, and ways to make it worse. That is one of the ways to make it work.
Not hearing a case, like not overturning a law (which it never was given the authority to do), is actually a critical component to keeping the judiciary from being a purely partisan political structure which we have managed to turn it into. If the court can't help but effectively turn a political decision into a constitutional amendment, then they shouldn't be ruling on it at all.
It's an excellent lecture on, among other things, the FBI and its history of infiltrating political organizations on both ends of the spectrum. Barnes is especially good on FBI operations of the Jan 6 tourist mill-around known as an "insurrection" and the Whitmer fake kidnapping scheme and the malfeasance of the last Presidential election.
No one in the NY courts, federal or state, are interested in abiding by the law. It would already have to be appealed beyond the NY Supreme Court, directly to SCOTUS. To be honest, SCOTUS will likely refuse to even accept it, as they did with Texas v. Pennsylvania. Even if they ruled anything, looked what happened with Bruin. SCOTUS was explicitly denied and ignored, even by other courts.
The side that thinks it's a good thing happens to include the entire population of DC, and the whole Republican establishment and donor class.
There is no other court that can hear matters between states. If the SCOTUS won't hear it, then there is no other recourse but armed conflict.
This single refusal to hear a case is enough to have the court abolished (I am pretty sure the POTUS can do it) and replaced by something else which is then DIRECTED to hear matters between states on every occasion.
BTW I don't see why there are so few SCOTUS judges. It isn't like there are few cases; Perhaps they are too busy legislating from the bench to notice that they are not actually a functioning court?
That's literally the opposite of true.
If the court refuses to hear it, then it is inherently a political matter. It sucks that we can't have the law enforced normally, but that means you have to win the issue politically through getting your faction in and attacking other factions in the system. Armed conflict is still not necessary; and is actually one of the primary goals of the establishment at this case.
Given that the issue was original jurisdiction for SCOTUS, it is an abdication of their responsibility; but contrasted with what they've normally done for the past 200 years (making unchallengeable law that provokes armed conflict because a political solution is no longer possible due to judicial interference), that is at least a workable result for the rest of us.
You don't want there to be lots of SCOTUS judges. You want to keep them very few. The Progressive Left has argued for many decades now that the Senate and SCOTUS should be reformed into being turned into an identical body like the House of Representatives: several hundred purely partisan political individuals elected by a general election. Although the courts are partisan at the moment, there are ways to reform it, and ways to make it worse. That is one of the ways to make it work.
Not hearing a case, like not overturning a law (which it never was given the authority to do), is actually a critical component to keeping the judiciary from being a purely partisan political structure which we have managed to turn it into. If the court can't help but effectively turn a political decision into a constitutional amendment, then they shouldn't be ruling on it at all.
Saw part of this speech this morning by Robert Barnes, the lawyer who occasionally speaks on the Viva Frei podcast: https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/national-leadership-seminar-irving-texas/the-corruption-of-the-fbi
It's an excellent lecture on, among other things, the FBI and its history of infiltrating political organizations on both ends of the spectrum. Barnes is especially good on FBI operations of the Jan 6 tourist mill-around known as an "insurrection" and the Whitmer fake kidnapping scheme and the malfeasance of the last Presidential election.
Thanks, I'll watch that, but I wasn't talking about the FBI.