>>”And, of course, the Court didn’t have to take the case at all.”
The Supreme Court was created to decide cases like this. It’s their job. They have a moral obligation to take it.
“They have a moral obligation to take it.”
Traitor Roberts is a duck[er].
Oh, the Court was always going to take this case, as a practical matter. But, again, strictly speaking, it was no obligated to do so. There are only a very few types of cases that the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to hear.
My point was in response to the apparent complaints by some who appear to think the Court is taking its time, going too slowly, not approaching this matter with a sense of alacrity.
Such complaints are grounded in ignorance. What? Did they imagine the Court was going to treat this matter like it was an episode of the "People's Court" or something? Hear argument completely on the fly and then come back with its decision after the commercial break? The Court was always going to require briefing in this case, and the schedule they've adopted is very expeditious.
There's no shame in ignorance, of course, but some people insist of declining to employ what brains the good Lord gave them. Sheesh.