• Parzivus [any]
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Pretty sure she's just saying an originalist would have to oppose the existence of West Virginia to be ideologically consistent. Expecting any American politician to have an ideology is lib shit though

    • _pi@lemmy.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Yeah Antonin Scalia was a textualist until he wasn't, until he was again, until he wasn't.

      • buckykat [none/use name]
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Every "originalist"/"textualist" is this way. It's an inherently dishonest position based entirely on finding any excuse to push reaction through the judiciary.

        • _pi@lemmy.ml
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Listen everything Scalia wrote was ideologically consistent because it used the same verbiage as Bush V Gore, "limited to present circumstances".

          • Wheaties [she/her]
            ·
            4 hours ago

            ah, a personal favorite,

            this ruling sets no precedent because I decided it doesn't

            The kind of thing produced by a very real and legitimate court system and definitely not just 9 unaccountable, unelected elders making decisions on a whim.

            • barrbaric [he/him]
              ·
              2 hours ago

              But remember, we can't stack the court with 50 zoomer maoists because people would "lose faith" in the "institutions".

    • edge [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I don't really see why. Multiple states had previously been split from existing states without controversy (including Kentucky also split from Virginia). All that's required is the approval of the state legislature and Congress. The Virginia state legislature as recognized by Congress and the President voted to allow the counties of West Virginia to leave and form their own state. Congress and the President approved.