• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The dissenting opinion puts that into the spotlight. It really is dumb that they’re saying even federal courts/administrative bodies can’t make that determination.

    • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      dissent

      So I went to read it and found there’s no dissenting opinion, but a concurring one: but oddly, if you CTRL+F “dissent”, their concurrence lights up for me. Tried it on two PDF readers, but maybe I’m losing grip on reality.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nah, it was a concurrence because they agreed that the case should be reversed. Their concurrence doesn’t agree with what they went beyond reversing it though. I just don’t have good legal language.

        • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Sorry, I didn’t articulate my thoughts well: I meant that when I CTRL+F’ed the PDF searching for “dissent”, the second of three places in the PDF that it “finds” the word dissent is literally behind the word “concurring” in “SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment” on page 15 of the PDF.

          I also don’t have legal training to dissect most of what’s in there, but I find it interesting that dissent is embedded in the PDF behind the title to their opinion.