,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. This tweet bothers me👇👇👇. None of these cases were liberal vs conservative in any regard. I'm a conservative but think the court was correct on all three rulings.
2. The first 5-4 ruling was that detention law gave no firm time limit and it since one wasn't given the time limit remains open ended. Seems correct to me. If congress wanted a time limit they should have put it in The law.
3. The second ruling was about a company trying to do an end around liability by building a product that required asbestos to be used to function but not applying the asbsetos itself and allowing the Navy to do it instead since the Navy has immunity. The court ruled that..
4. If the company knew in advance the product needed asbestos to function then they are liable just as much; no matter who applied the asbestos to get the final product to function.
5. The third case was about the government keeping their word in Treaties as it was meant at the time the treaty was signed. Treaties aren't living documents that change with the times. You want a new treaty? Then negotiate one with both parties, if you can't then tough.
6. I do t know why people want to divide people but the tweet I quoted seems to want to do that. The court wasn't acting in a conservative or liberal manner. In the three cases, they were upholding the laws & treaties as written & stopping people from trying to avoid said laws.
7. * 1clarification* The 1st case did strengthen the ability of the federal government to determine who should be allowed to stay in the country so in that regard those against open borders/illegal immigration "won". Out of the 3 that had the most political implications.
8. That case wasn't just one based on politics. It's more about letting congress write the laws. The four justices in dissent wanted to add language that wasn't there (time frame). The five in the majority basically said that's congress's job.
