Judge upholds $83m E Jean Carroll defamation verdict against Trump - eviltoast
  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I never said they can’t, I said they won’t unless there is a Federal question. State supreme courts are experts on their state laws and the SCOTUS will not interpret state laws for states.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I literally just gave you an example though. Federal elections are run by the states. The US Supreme Court ruled against the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding that state’s running of elections. They may be federal elections, but it’s completely a state issue.

      Or we could talk about their history with state gerrymandering cases?

      Especially with this current court, it’s quite the claim to say with such certainty that they will or will not do something. But, historically speaking, you’re wrong.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        And I also gave examples. I’m not really sure what you’re going on about. Just walk away.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You gave me an example of…? Your claim is that (with a strange amount of certainty) that the US Supreme Court doesn’t do X. I gave you evidence that they have and will do X. That’s all I needed to do in order to support my claim.

          You can’t really prove a negative with examples so I’m not sure what you mean when you say that you also gave examples? Examples of what???

          Is every SCOTUS case ever (that isn’t one I mentioned) an example?