Fine, but their actions don't really say anything about their view of the constitution.
I’m of the opinion that an unethical person will more readily violate the Constitution....any law for that matter.
Their unethical behavior will serve notice of their belief system.
Then why was one filing deleted, two filings not filed, neither of them even listed on the docket until a news article noted the problem, and even now the filing altered so it is a “request” rather than a “motion”?
If this motion has no merit, why is somebody going to a lot of trouble to break the law regarding two motions lawfully filed in this case?
They know the motion has merit, or they wouldn’t have acted in this extra-lawful way. And if they are being deliberately lawless on these motions then why should anybody trust them to be lawful in the actual ruling?
Even those who think the motion has no merit should be screaming bloody murder over the lawless way the case is being handled because it proves the lawlessness of those who are handling the case, and that undermines EVERYTHING that SCOTUS is supposed to be about. It also undermines everything that the whole lawyering profession is supposed to be about and reduces the whole system to a farce.