Only One Justice Dissented on the Merits of the Two-Thirds Supermajority Requirement

Comments

1
So, when are you going to start asking the senators what their plans are? Are you going to criticize them for attempting to pass regressive taxes, or are we still going with the any taxes are good taxes meme that has fucked over the poor in this state for so long?
2
Does this mean Tim Eyman will finally shut the fuck up?

I don't think so either, but I can hope.
3
@2 No, Tim Eyman will not shut the fuck up. In fact, he's never really been too concerned over whether his initiatives were constitutional or not.
4
while the outcome and vote on the 2/3 issue is good news, it's fundamentally wrong to characterize the dissent's position on justiciability as absurd. very wrong. because the legislators don't have to ignore the law to create a real controversy because things that are not unconstitutional ARE NOT LAW AT ALL and so it's not disobeying the oath of office to ignore it. they SHOULD have ignored the eyman measure as they swore to uphold the constitution. if tim eyman gets a measure passed undoing the 15th amdment, that's illegal right? but it's right ther ein state "law" so the argument would be our state senators have to obery that? what the flying fuck? without getting into godwin land let me just say the defense that "someone is caling this a law I have to obey" is almost never a defense, and we should not treat it as one. morally and legally, for years, democrats and others violated the constitution by treating the 2/3 thing as law -- it wasn't law, it was unconstitutional there are no laws that are both law and unconstitutional, capisce?
5
@4, the unconstitutionality of a law is determined by a court opinion, capisce? Until that happens, it's just your opinion.

Which is pretty difficult to read, since you don't use paragraphs, nor do you make sense.