There are so many actual frauds that have led to supreme court decisions with this court that I wonder if this will matter www.wired.com/story/aborti...
When reasoning from the desired outcome, backwards to the argument, at best there would be the smallest adjustment to make the argument hold again.
I think the word for this process is "rationalization".
Actual fact patterns are woke, real originalism comes from a meme you saw on Facebook. After all, the godfather of vibes, Tony Scalia, made numerous arguments against Obamacare citing statutory passages that weren't there.
Almost certainly not. This Court has decided that things that literally did not happen but, y'know, express the overall sentiment of the right can be considered for legal arguments.
Nothing ever stopped this bought and paid for SCOTUS from rushing to a result they CLEARLY wanted to reach by hook or crook, so...not holding my breath when it comes to THIS moldy lot of bastards.
At least the case that's actually up at SCOTUS is different from what Kacsmaryk originally ruled, so it would be even more craven than usual if they relied on retracted research to reach a decision on a legal issue not before them bsky.app/profile/saba...
I recall nothing so much as Scalia once talking about how actual innocence didn't matter compared to the right judgement of the court arrived at correctly by procedure, a statement I think about a LOT
It’s not like the whole concept of executive privilege is based on the Air Force lying to cover up the cause of a plane crash. Or that they had to change their story a couple of times as more facts came out
