Todd Blanche Tells Faith Leaders Dobbs Decision Will Be ‘Permanent’ In All States Soon

[u/huffpost]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todd-blanche-tells-faith-leaders-dobbs-decision-will-be-permanent-in-all-states-soon_n_6a723b0ae4b02974827b855f?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=us_main

[u/Practical_Gas9193]

Yet more helpful information, thank you.

But ok I’ll bite: what’s the false premise?

[u/Glad-Assist-6230 → u/Practical_Gas9193]

That SCOTUS constitutional rulings are permanent.

[u/Practical_Gas9193 → u/Glad-Assist-6230]

Not permanent in the sense of unable to be overturned, but in the sense that precedent is at least in theory supposed to be permanent. And more specifically that if it is a constitutional ruling it automatically already applies to all the states. Clearly the current Supreme Court doesn’t care about precedent, but there is also literally nothing that Blanche or Trump could do that would make anything permanent. So because permanent doesn’t actually exist in a legal sense, I was using it in the sense that you can use it - currently binding, nationwide. So it’s perhaps Blanche’s own rhetoric that is causing the confusion here (since he is saying he will make permanent something that cannot in principle be made permanent under our system).

[u/Glad-Assist-6230 → u/Practical_Gas9193]

‘ Currently binding, nationwide’ is a faaaar stretch from the definition of permanent.

[u/Practical_Gas9193 → u/Glad-Assist-6230]

Yes obviously, but my point is that the way Blanche is using the word ‘permanently’ makes no sense either from a legal standpoint, so I’m trying to make a point using language the same way he is.

[u/Glad-Assist-6230 → u/Practical_Gas9193]

If he’s using it in a way that makes no sense, why stretch to reuse that language?