Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
“States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.
What? I didn’t conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.
Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
“States can’t sue the government just over ‘indirect’ harm from a federal policy” is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn’t to the supreme court anymore.
Well, you clearly aren’t capable, because you think these two cases are the same and they’re not.
You can repeat that ad nauseam, and it still won’t be true.
Just say you’re upset at the ruling, and you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond that and move on.
Two things don’t need to be EXACTLY THE SAME to follow the same logic. How do you not get that?
How do you not get that they AREN’T the same logic…
You keep insisting it’s the same logic, and it’s not. I even bolded the pertinent part for you that explains why it’s NOT the same logic.
Jfc.
You.