Man your worse than my friend

etc.

worse in what way

@Pyro reminds me of when Donnie is asking what s going on in Big Lebowski

you can't tell them to not broadcast a prayer, you CAN say that it cannot disturb the peace. There are workarounds plenty

You have dodged my entire example

never saw the big lebowski

God dammit Donnie

It's good

i might watch it at some point

I read your example in full, and gave a detailed explanation of the court's position on it, the constitution's position on it, and the possible ways to make the argument which the supreme court would be able to defend.

Whether it is unconstitutional or not is irrelevant, the scotus decided that it was

9 people who are unelected

These fucking fascists wanna chop off my johnson

nine people appointed periodically by elected officials

unelected is better...

yeah, elections for supreme court judges would be...

gruesome

the law would not survive even one fucking election cycle

it would be a clusterfuck of lobbyists

oh that would be a nightmare

literally the worst idea ever

yup

And I agree

Elections for SCOTUS should only be held in my house.

then why are you complaining that they are unelected?

Let me decide who gets to be a judge

So what do we do to resolve the issue?

absolutely nothing

they are appointed, it is a good middle ground

this is basically the best we got at the moment

this is literally the best there can be

Oh idk make is so that they cant just decided on a case and make it unconstitutional

Can we debate on what November should really be? No Nut November, No Shave November, or what

@Cody find a way to structure your law which is not unconstitutional

if they cannot do that, they cannot rule on anything

Both are gay

@Gilgamesh no nut, no shave, no nothing

It needs to be decided on a case by case basis, and not extend beyond the scope of the original case

The idea that a position that's elected is better over an appointed position is an ideological one.

or just wait a couple years for it to be overturned