• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The six justices were named as defendants in the case.

    Makes sense they sat out then. Presiding over your own trial doesn’t make much sense.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nope that’s not it.

      They have the majority, so if they all sit out the SC can’t hear the case.

      So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.

      Especially since the lower courts decision was to dismiss the case against the Justices who vetoed the SC case

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.

        “the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit”

        They upheld the judgment from the lower court. Should they instead preside over their own case? That hardly seems like a better choice than upholding the lower court’s judgement.

        • Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          They could have provided enough SC justices to have a quorom but not provided any input into the quorom. Essentially, be present and go along with whatever the other justices decide.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            There’s nothing in the Constitution about how many justices there has to be. I would argue that if the Supreme Court can’t get quorum we need to nominate Justices until they get it.