FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Its hard to tell what judges will do once they’re seated in the Supreme Court.
The South Dakota vs Dole case was about funds. It didn’t deny the states from making their choice. Plus here he is simply saying that the Senators would be more apt to protect state’s rights if they were elected by state legislatures. That makes a lot of sense. The court case was about a law passed by both houses of Congress and had to do with conditioning money to the legal drinking age. The consequences of the lower ages were considered significant on the entire nation. It didn’t forbid states from having the lower age. It just left them holding some of the financial responsibility. They lost 10% of their highway funds because they contributed more than their fair share to drunk driving. So that’s how they ruled. I don’t see a contradiction in the two positions.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.