Should states resume evictions and ignore the CDC's unconstitutional edict?

[FreeAndClear]

@Axxowiz

Both sides abuse it, it doesn’t make it right. We were never supposed to be ruled by EO’s and they should be regulated to renaming state parks only.

Congress doesn’t want their name on any vote they get paid for doing absolutely nothing or as Clinton’s former advisor Paul Begala said “ Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool”.

Yes we said this during the unitary executive years. Nobody cared.

Again caring about edicts while the other guys are in power is not how this works.
The care isn’t real. It’s politics.

[Samson_Corwell]

@peek-a-boo

@FreeAndClear

There are plenty of decisions made by con justices that use emotion rather than rule of law. Scalias little tidbit about slippery slope of homosexual rights comes to mind. Pure emotion

Not even remotely true. The constitution doesn’t single out homosexuals for special rights. A strict interpretation of the law is what this was about. LIB emotions made up some non-existent rights. LGBT was already protected by existing legislation, there is no need to single out individual races, sexual orientations, etc. for special protection. That is LIB pandering to single issue activists.

Activist judges just means judges people don’t agree with.

No real disagreement here.

Still a good decision

Agree, but my point stands.

By “special”, you mean “protection” that is applied to all possible values of a given attribute".

[Samson_Corwell]

@FreeAndClear

There is nothing in the constitution about legislating morality.

Every law legislates morality.