That's an odd thing to say, since you were griping that consensus and authority are meaningless a few posts ago. But now you want me to value the consensus and authority of... political appointees?
Anyway, some light reading:
I never said consensus is meaningless, I said your version of scientific "consensus" is meaningless because that's not an actual consensus (hence why I always put it in quotes). It's a consensus of scientists that agree with you while ignoring the ones that don't, thus it's not a consensus. You think scientists aren't appointed in some manner or work on studies where there's no influence for a specific result or conflict of interests? Regardless of whether the Supreme Court justices are politically appointed, are they not actual judges or not experts in law? You're acting like the Supreme Court is a kangaroo court.
Do you not get basic legal framework (the very thing you accused me of)? States have election powers and all but not in deciding a federal law. You can't have states interpreting a federal law differently from one another, it's just basic logic. For example, if there was a presidential candidate that was 34 years old right now that turns 35 right on Inauguration Day, you can't have some states saying they must be 35 on the date of the election while other states allow them to be on the ballot since when they would be president if they win, they'd be 35. That would be a federal decision, not a state decision. Same thing with the Trump ballot case. Hence, why both right and left leaning judges all agreed, there's no other way to interpret that law. Just because cases get overturned doesn't mean the Supreme Court just does what they want and disregards law, there's grey areas in law just like anything else and different interpretations of said law as well.
If you can't admit you were objectively wrong on the Trump ballot case, then there's literally no point in discussing anything with you.
ohiocapitaljournal.com
