If Texas v Pennsylvania passed, what would have been worse?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

vote

[Kuumo]

Something would have to be seriously wrong with the court system for the Supreme Court to even hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, so whatever events happened to make the court actively anti-democracy would be worse than Dred Scott because it would imply that no one had rights, including but not limited to African Americans. That said, this question doesn't really make sense in a vacuum because Texas never had a chance of winning the Texas v. Pennsylvania case.

[Former President tack50]

Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Dred Scott I guesss makes at least some coherent (but wrong) arguments, despite being an incredibly awful decision. Per Wikipedia's very limited summary, point 3 makes at least some sense if you thinkg that black people are property ("The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.").

I would disagree with the ruling there, but at least it's something that makes some limited legal sense

Texas v. Pennsylvania would have been 100% nonsensical; and I imagine any lawyer would think it is a mockery of the legal profession (though actual Atlas lawyers feel free to correct me).

Seriously, even what was arguably the Fantasyland equivalent to Texas v. Pennsylvania was better than the RL one somehow. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Dred Scott I guesss makes at least some coherent (but wrong) arguments, despite being an incredibly awful decision. Per Wikipedia's very limited summary, point 3 makes at least some sense if you thinkg that black people are property ("The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.").

I would disagree with the ruling there, but at least it's something that makes some limited legal sense

Texas v. Pennsylvania would have been 100% nonsensical; and I imagine any lawyer would think it is a mockery of the legal profession (though actual Atlas lawyers feel free to correct me).

Seriously, even what was arguably the Fantasyland equivalent to Texas v. Pennsylvania was better than the RL one somehow. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction

Using arguments which are historically and legally baseless to support the notion that neGroeS aRe nOt pEople and that therefore Dred Scott lacks standing, and then instead of just dismissing the lawsuit and closing the case, spending a sh**tload of pages on what should have been obiter dicta to basically declare that slavery is sacred and the federal government cannot do jacksh**t about it is NOT making a mockery of the legal profession?

[Former President tack50]

Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Dred Scott I guesss makes at least some coherent (but wrong) arguments, despite being an incredibly awful decision. Per Wikipedia's very limited summary, point 3 makes at least some sense if you thinkg that black people are property ("The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories.").

I would disagree with the ruling there, but at least it's something that makes some limited legal sense

Texas v. Pennsylvania would have been 100% nonsensical; and I imagine any lawyer would think it is a mockery of the legal profession (though actual Atlas lawyers feel free to correct me).

Seriously, even what was arguably the Fantasyland equivalent to Texas v. Pennsylvania was better than the RL one somehow. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction

Using arguments which are historically and legally baseless to support the notion that neGroeS aRe nOt pEople and that therefore Dred Scott lacks standing, and then instead of just dismissing the lawsuit and closing the case, spending a sh**tload of pages on what should have been obiter dicta to basically declare that slavery is sacred and the federal government cannot do jacksh**t about it is NOT making a mockery of the legal profession?

Oh it absolutely was a joke, but the Texas v. Pennsylvania case would have been an even bigger mockery I think

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If it was heard, we know it's likely to be rejected, but would Thomas or Alito have objected. They supported the claims by Trump that the election was stolen?

I believe Alito would have objected while Thomas would not (for some other originalist constitutional reason)

Would it have been 7-2 / 8-1 or 9-0?