Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

"I only ignore the laws I don't like."

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that, as president, he wouldn't be bound to follow Supreme Court opinions--i.e., he's denying your premise, that those opinions are laws. As a practical matter, that goes without saying--it may usually be imprudent to ignore what the Supreme Court says on a subject, but the Supreme Court has no mechanism by which it can enforce its holdings. It has to rely on--wait for it--the executive branch.

But Huckabee's disdain for "judicial supremacy" isn't so clearly wrongheaded on a theoretical level, either. Huckabee--who rightly distinguishes "judicial supremacy" from the concept of "judicial review," despite Wallace's attempted confusion of the issues--isn't taking a position that only someone unlearned in Constitutional law or history would take. Here's Michael Paulsen discussing the topic as addressed in his recent book, The Constitution: An Introduction:

A consistent motif of the book is the recurrent myth of “judicial supremacy” in constitutional interpretation — a view that most textbook accounts (and law school casebook accounts) wrongly ascribe to the framing generation and to Marbury v. Madison. The power of constitutional interpretation, we observe at various points in the book, is not exclusively vested in the courts, with all other branches and officers of government bound to accept, unthinkingly and reflexively, whatever the courts decide.
...

For example, we offer a brief theoretical and practical defense of the propriety of executive and congressional non-acquiescence in judicial precedent that, in the independent judgment of these other actors, conflicts with the Constitution. We explain and defend Congress’s prohibition of slavery in national territories notwithstanding the contrary decision in Dred Scott and Lincoln’s non-enforcement of Chief Justice Taney’s constitutional judgment and order in Ex parte Merryman. Further, we take seriously (at least as an original matter) the idea that Congress might legitimately use the impeachment power to remove executive and judicial officers for their perceived flagrant departures from the Constitution.

...

The independence of the judiciary operates as a formidable check on the actions of the other two branches. But Congress and the President have checks on this check, too. Congress largely controls the courts’ jurisdiction — their authority to hear and decide cases. And if the courts’ decisions conflict with the Constitution itself, Congress and the President possess the power to disregard them (and have done so on certain occasions, as we will see in later chapters). After all, Congress and the President are bound by oath to support and defend the Constitution, and must resist unconstitutional actions by the courts, and by each other, just as the courts are bound to resist violations of the Constitution by Congress and the President.

The courts have power to decide cases — and thus check Congress and the President — but little practical power to enforce their decisions, and none to command the other two branches. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, the judicial branch “may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Indeed, if the courts could command the other two branches, that would violate Madison’s (and Montesquieu’s) rule that the accumulation of all power in one set of hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Traditionally, however, Congress and the President have deferred to the constitutional judgments of the Supreme Court — with only a few notable exceptions — even in cases of extraordinary errors risking great harm to the nation. The courts’ very weakness thus has become a source of their strength.

...

The power of independent judgment as to the meaning and application of the law is especially significant under the US constitutional regime precisely because the Constitution itself is designated as the supreme law of the land. Courts interpret and apply the law as part of their regular function of deciding cases, and the Constitution is part of “the law” — indeed, the supreme law — that courts are to apply. Thus, the courts — with the Supreme Court at the top of the hierarchy — possess an independent power to interpret and apply the Constitution, as a consequence of their customary power to interpret and apply the law in cases before them.

This does not make the Supreme Court supreme over the other branches — recall Madison’s statement in The Federalist No. 49 concerning the Constitution’s separation of powers: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” But it does mean that the framers envisioned the judicial power of constitutional interpretation as a meaningful check on the other branches.

 

[Teggy]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

 

[TacticalFox88]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

I love how Osama being dead means nothing haha

 

[Dominican Power]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

How incredibly stupid.

 

[Teggy]

I can just see the artist finishing his drawing, getting a smirk on his face and saying out loud, "game, set, match, liberals...game, set, match."

 

[Jooney]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

Best bit is how there is absolutely no wreckage or destruction on the left pic.

 

[NeoXChaos]

So Poligaf. who do you think will ultimately be the nominee and when will they clinch the nomination? Will we have a brokered convention? Will Ted Cruz fight his way to the convention? Will Bush survive? Will Walker crumble? Will Rubio rise up or implode? Will Rick Perry remember the third one? Can Rand Paul win on libertarian support?

As of early 2015, the tentative schedule for 2016 is as follows:

February
Monday, February 1: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, February 9: New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20: South Carolina
Tuesday February 23: Nevada Caucuses

March
Tuesday, March 1: Colorado caucuses; Massachusetts; Oklahoma; Tennessee; Texas; Vermont; Virginia; North Carolina
Saturday, March 5: Louisiana
Tuesday, March 8: Alabama; Hawaii caucuses; Mississippi; Ohio; Michigan
Sunday, March 13: Puerto Rico
Tuesday, March 15: Illinois; Missouri; Florida
Tuesday, March 22: Arizona; Utah caucuses

April

Tuesday, April 5: Maryland; Washington, DC; Wisconsin
Tuesday, April 26: Connecticut; Delaware; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island
May

Tuesday, May 3: Indiana
Tuesday, May 10: Nebraska; West Virginia
Tuesday, May 17: Kentucky; Oregon
Tuesday, May 24: Arkansas

June
Tuesday, June 7: California; Montana; New Jersey; New Mexico; South Dakota

States with no firm dates[edit]
Georgia — Tuesday 1 March (presumably)
Kansas — Saturday 5 March (presumably)
Maine — Saturday 5 March (presumably)
Nevada — Precinct Caucuses, Saturday 6 February (presumably)
New Hampshire — Primary, Tuesday 26 January (presumably)
North Carolina — Tuesday 1 March (presumably)
South Carolina — Saturday 23 January (presumably)
Utah — Tuesday 22 March Caucus (presumably)
Washington — Saturday 19 March - Saturday 16 April (presumably)
Wyoming — Saturday 27 February (presumably)
Minnesota -
Idaho
New York
Alaska
North Dakota

 

[ivysaur12]

Jesus, that's a terrible primary schedule for Jeb and Rubio.

 

[Oblivion]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

Remind him/her that there were 200 people killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq the month before Obama was sworn in.

I can just see the artist finishing his drawing, getting a smirk on his face and saying out loud, "game, set, match, liberals...game, set, match."

That goes for every right-wing cartoonist.

 

[FyreWulff]

lolololol - I don't even know what to do when Facebook friends post things like this. I mean, they're not BAD people.

ETERNAL WAR

guys, we took out Saddam

Middle East tensions were over

 

[Teggy]

aw yeah

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson won the presidential straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City on Saturday, beating out Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Carson won 25.4 percent of the vote, while Walker took 20.5 percent and Cruz received 16.4 percent.

 

[TacticalFox88]

aw yeah

If Carson took the nomination, in some bizarro world, oh. my. GOD.

 

[HyperionX]

The others are apparently willing to let this kind of unsubstantiated smear slide, but I'm not. Prove that your second sentence is true.

It's something you hear from time to time on Anarcho-Capitalism sites. Case in point: https://archive.is/XU0f4

And the whole slavery thing is based on so many Libertarians being southern whites would defended slavery as part of states' rights. I'm sure if you browse user comments you'll find at least a few who feel this way.

 

[Teggy]

If Carson took the nomination, in some bizarro world, oh. my. GOD.

This is pretty meaningless but it keeps him in the race that much longer.

 

[Diablos]

Ben Carson was here in Pittsburgh for his scholar fund banquet, and they gave him some props on the local news, then went on to talk about how he came out on top in OK. I cringed.

 

[RustyNails]

Why is Mark Kirk playing ads in Illinois? He is using his stroke in his ad, playing sad violin music and telling us it makes him want to fight for us even more.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's something you hear from time to time on Anarcho-Capitalism sites. Case in point: https://archive.is/XU0f4

And the whole slavery thing is based on so many Libertarians being southern whites would defended slavery as part of states' rights. I'm sure if you browse user comments you'll find at least a few who feel this way.

"So many are OK with rape" = Reddit user jigssaw?

"So many are OK with slavery" = At least a few "user comments" (you're sure)?

It's at this point that you should simply retract the challenged claim.

Also, that Reddit thread is atrocious. jigssaw doesn't understand personal service contracts and hatredsplurge doesn't understand the concept of ownership (and thinks "empathy" is a valid argument). I don't think it should be offered as an example of any widely held opinions.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Why is Mark Kirk playing ads in Illinois? He is using his stroke in his ad, playing sad violin music and telling us it makes him want to fight for us even more.

Good luck overcoming a 600,000-800,000+ vote deficit between Hillary and the eventual Republican nominee. He like Toomey & Johnson are toast. The sympathy vote can only get you so far.

 

[HyperionX]

"So many are OK with rape" = Reddit user jigssaw?

"So many are OK with slavery" = At least a few "user comments" (you're sure)?

It's at this point that you should simply retract the challenged claim.

Also, that Reddit thread is atrocious. jigssaw doesn't understand personal service contracts and hatredsplurge doesn't understand the concept of ownership (and thinks "empathy" is a valid argument). I don't think it should be offered as an example of any widely held opinions.

It's an example of many real-world Libertarians viewpoints. I've only spent about 5-10 minutes of looking around for examples, so I don't think what I've linked to is a rare occurrence. And if you can find at least few examples quickly, it would be pretty reasonable to extrapolate that there must be many of them.

Misogyny and racism are very common beliefs among Libertarians BTW. I think once you really learn what modern day Libertarianism is about you won't find what I said is all that hard to believe.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's an example of many real-world Libertarians viewpoints. I've only spent about 5-10 minutes of looking around for examples, so I don't think what I've linked to is a rare occurrence. And if you can find at least few examples quickly, it would be pretty reasonable to extrapolate that there must be many of them.

"The first card I pulled was an Ace. Therefore there are many Aces in this deck."

Of course, your case here is even more absurd: "I asked the dealer to give me an Ace. He gave me an Ace. Therefore there are many Aces in this deck."

Misogyny and racism are very common beliefs among Libertarians BTW. I think once you really learn what modern day Libertarianism is about you won't find what I said is all that hard to believe.

I'm still not seeing any supporting evidence.

 

[thepotatoman]

If Carson took the nomination, in some bizarro world, oh. my. GOD.

If Carson took the nomination, literally any democrat would probably win. Even Joe Biden would probably win.

Of course, straw polls still mean absolutely nothing.

 

[B-Dubs]

If Carson took the nomination, literally any democrat would probably win. Even Joe Biden would probably win.

Of course, straw polls still mean absolutely nothing.

Biden would crush pretty much anyone, at least in the debates. You ask someone if they'd vote for Biden over someone else now they'd just think of silly Biden, not the Biden that made Paul Ryan look like a small child in a debate.

 

[CygnusXS]

Biden should run in-character as Diamond Joe.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's an example of many real-world Libertarians viewpoints. I've only spent about 5-10 minutes of looking around for examples, so I don't think what I've linked to is a rare occurrence. And if you can find at least few examples quickly, it would be pretty reasonable to extrapolate that there must be many of them.

Misogyny and racism are very common beliefs among Libertarians BTW. I think once you really learn what modern day Libertarianism is about you won't find what I said is all that hard to believe.

Doesn't seem that you'll be able to easily shed the burden of proof on this, mate, not without some bit of hard data to back up the anecdotal evidence. Until then, he has you.

 

[Frank the Great]

I used to be a libertarian. Then I learned that they believe the private sector would have eliminated discrimination, child labor, poison in food, etc on its own without government interference, and that they believe private roads are better for society. I learned this in a class on Milton Friedman.

After that, I was completely turned off. It's like a bubble burst. If the logical extension of a belief system leads to such absurd results, then it is not worth shit imo. I still get the reasoning behind it, ie. it is the most democratic and "free" of coercion ideology. I just don't think it produces good outcomes when applied in the real world. In fact, I think it would produce tragic outcomes.

 

[BertramCooper]

I used to be a libertarian. Then I learned that they believe the private sector would have eliminated discrimination, child labor, poison in food, etc on its own without government interference, and that they believe private roads are better for society. I learned this in a class on Milton Friedman.

Anyone who believes this needs to drive the entire length of the Ohio Turnpike and then be forced to continue on for the entire length of the Indiana Toll Road.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Anyone who believes this needs to drive the entire length of the Ohio Turnpike and then be forced to continue on for the entire length of the Indiana Toll Road.

I do this twice annually. I did not realize the Indiana Toll Road had been privatized.

 

[BertramCooper]

I do this twice annually. I did not realize the Indiana Toll Road had been privatized.

For about a decade now.

The company who runs it went bankrupt last year.

 

[HyperionX]

"The first card I pulled was an Ace. Therefore there are many Aces in this deck."

Of course, your case here is even more absurd: "I asked the dealer to give me an Ace. He gave me an Ace. Therefore there are many Aces in this deck."



I'm still not seeing any supporting evidence.

Doesn't seem that you'll be able to easily shed the burden of proof on this, mate, not without some bit of hard data to back up the anecdotal evidence. Until then, he has you.

He's asking for literally anecdotal evidence here, which I provided.

EDIT: More examples, that took all of 5 minutes to dig up: 1, 2.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

For about a decade now.

The company who runs it went bankrupt last year.

I travel it annually and I am trying to remember if it always sucked. I don't recall.

He's asking for literally anecdotal evidence here, which I provided.

EDIT: More examples, that took all of 5 minutes to dig up: 1, 2.

It's an impossible argument because it's about a generalization about an ill-defined group. Nobody can win this.

I'd argue the libertarians take certain principles to extremes, and that certainly fits that model-- but is there anyone who advocates it as policy that's influential in any way? Say, the way that Rand Paul spoke against the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Metaphoreus]

He's asking for literally anecdotal evidence here, which I provided.

EDIT: More examples, that took all of 5 minutes to dig up: 1, 2.

No, I'm not asking for literally anecdotal evidence. If you have statistical evidence, then that would be even better. But you're trying to convert anecdotal evidence into a substitute for statistical evidence.

You ought to just admit that your comment was an unsubstantiated smear inspired by a personal prejudice against libertarians.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No, I'm not asking for literally anecdotal evidence. If you have statistical evidence, then that would be even better. But you're trying to convert anecdotal evidence into a substitute for statistical evidence.

You ought to just admit that your comment was an unsubstantiated smear inspired by a personal prejudice against libertarians.

You could help by providing any Libertarian thought on the matter, also from an influential actor.

 

[HyperionX]

It's an impossible argument because it's about a generalization about an ill-defined group. Nobody can win this.

I'd argue the libertarians take certain principles to extremes, and that certainly fits that model-- but is there anyone who advocates it as policy that's influential in any way? Say, the way that Rand Paul spoke against the Civil Rights Act?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say people who call themselves Libertarians takes these absurd positions. It was just an observation I made about many of them, not a defining characteristic of all aspects of Libertarianism. Your point about Rand Paul and the CRA is another good one.

No, I'm not asking for literally anecdotal evidence. If you have statistical evidence, then that would be even better. But you're trying to convert anecdotal evidence into a substitute for statistical evidence.

You ought to just admit that your comment was an unsubstantiated smear inspired by a personal prejudice against libertarians.

Sadly I don't have statistical evidence, but I was always referring to certain individuals who held those kinds of beliefs in response to Rand Paul comparing the ACA to slavery. I'm not going to be goaded into taking a position I never held in the first place.

If it was a smear, then it is one that is substantiated and is not totally off-base.

 

[Black Mamba]

“It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.” The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language,” adding, “I don’t know how else to explain it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Former GOP Senator admitting King v Burrell is a joke case.

 

[BertramCooper]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

 

[HylianTom]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

I'm so happy I could poop on the floor!

 

[B-Dubs]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

It's about damn time.

I'm so happy I could poop on the floor!

I'd rather poop on his floor.

 

[Teggy]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

The fact that he thinks he can sue Twitter because they won't let him post is even funnier.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Ann Kirkpatrick is challenging McCain. Good luck lol.

 

[ivysaur12]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

God is good.

Ann Kirkpatrick is challenging McCain. Good luck lol.

Great get for the Democrats, but they just need to keep that House seat.

EDIT: holy shit her announcement video is JUST A LITTLE AWKWARD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbsAvOH3Bmo

 

[Oblivion]

No, I'm not asking for literally anecdotal evidence. If you have statistical evidence, then that would be even better. But you're trying to convert anecdotal evidence into a substitute for statistical evidence.

You ought to just admit that your comment was an unsubstantiated smear inspired by a personal prejudice against libertarians.

What about Rand Paul being against the CRA? And there have been more than a few articles about how the CRA needs to be repealed on major websites like Reason and Mises.org.

 

[Black Mamba]

Preparing for a Supreme Court decision that could strike down Obamacare’s subsidies for nearly 7.5 million people this summer, Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan to resurrect them — at a steep price for the White House.
With several Senate Republicans facing tough reelections, and control of the chamber up for grabs, 31 senators have signed on to a bill written by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that would restore the subsidies for current Obamacare enrollees through September 2017. But the administration would have to pay a heavy price — the bill would also repeal Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates and insurance coverage requirements.
Story Continued Below

“In that moment of what could be political chaos, we’re offering such a reasonable proposal that solves a mess,” Johnson said. “It fixes a mess caused by a sloppily written law, unlawfully implemented. All we’re asking for is a little bit of freedom back, which would be, I think, pretty popular,” Johnson said. Even Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing Johnson’s measure, along with the rest of the chamber’s GOP leaders.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...amacare-replacement-118272.html#ixzz3bH3MpEWp

But without the individual mandate, the law falls apart and the subsidies are irrelevant.

Of course, they know this. They want to shout "WE GAVE BACK THE SUBSIDIES AND OBAMACARE STILL FELL APART." Fucking hacks.

this is their "plan." It's no plan at all because they know the WH cannot eliminated the individual mandate.

Of course, it's not an official plan because the House GOP won't even go as far as the Senate will.

But even if Johnson could somehow persuade Obama and Senate Democrats to accept his plan — a herculean task — the bigger problem will be his Republican colleagues in the House.
The growing divide between the two chambers leaves the GOP in an awkward spot. The court could gut Obamacare in June, handing Republicans a long-sought victory they couldn’t achieve legislatively. But without a backup plan that the whole party supports, the GOP has no way to blunt the political damage if millions of Americans lose the ability to pay for their health insurance.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...amacare-replacement-118272.html#ixzz3bH3humKb

LOL

 

[thepotatoman]

The fact that he thinks he can sue Twitter because they won't let him post is even funnier.

If not for the terms of service, he might be able to sue and win for economic damages. He might also win if Twitter only said they reserve the right to refuse service to people promoting violence, if the courts said that post doesn't promote violence.

But Twitter's term of service clearly states it reserves the right to ban anyone for any reason. Goes to show why everyone forces you to sign those terms of service agreements when you sign up for stuff.

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

I prefer the term conservative pro-victim over conservative megatroll.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Funny how a picture of <140 characters can still contain a thousand words.

 

[Abinash117]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ion-setback-appeals-court-118290.html?hp=t1_r

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that President Barack Obama&#8217;s most recent executive actions on immigration should remain on hold as a legal fight plays out over his decision to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to millions more illegal immigrants.

Looks like a court won't lift the stay on the immigration executive action Obama did last year. I guess Obama will appeal it.

 

[Wilsongt]

Getting tired of this shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...elay_n_7444216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

WASHINGTON -- "Homosexuality is a behavior. Not a civil right." So argues Restrain the Judges, a conservative coalition that has sponsored billboard ads proclaiming this message.

The group, which is pushing Congress to prevent federal judges from ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, has attracted attention for its ads' controversial comparison of people "born" black, Asian or Latino with gay people "not born this way." Less well-known is the fact that the group is advised by a man once among the most powerful in Washington: former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

States won't abide by an "illegal ruling by the Supreme Court" like Roe v. Wade, DeLay told HuffPost, referring to the landmark 1973 decision establishing a limited constitutional right to abortion. "There's been several examples where the Supreme Court has ruled and the executive branch and/or the legislative branch has chosen not to enforce it," he added, citing Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision holding that African-Americans could not be citizens, which was eventually overturned by the 14th Amendment.

"We are calling on Congress to ... remove jurisdiction from Federal Courts and appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to rule on marriage," Porter told HuffPost in an email.

Occasionally, DeLay has reached out to lawmakers to advance Restrain the Judges' agenda. He said he encouraged Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), via Cruz's staff, to introduce bills last month that would restrict federal judges from weighing in on same-sex marriage. (Cruz was already working on this legislation on his own, DeLay said.) The bills will be "catalysts for people to rally around" whether they pass or not, DeLay added.

I can't voice my full thoughts on this because I can't see shit due to an eye infection, but just know I feel this guy is an idiot.

Spoiler

Thanks, Obama.

 

[ivysaur12]

looooool

 

[HylianTom]

Getting tired of this shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...elay_n_7444216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


I can't voice my full thoughts on this because I can't see shit due to an eye infection, but just know I feel this guy is an idiot.

Spoiler

Thanks, Obama.

Meanwhile, Roy Moore is pushing resistance to a SCOTUS ruling.

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion...710-03d8-11e5-9c27-cf3e907643f1.html?mode=jqm

They aren't going to let this go. Texas has resurrected its HB707 in the form of a Senate amendment, too.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Getting tired of this shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...elay_n_7444216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I can't voice my full thoughts on this because I can't see shit due to an eye infection, but just know I feel this guy is an idiot.

Spoiler

Thanks, Obama.

Meanwhile, Roy Moore is pushing resistance to a SCOTUS ruling.

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion...710-03d8-11e5-9c27-cf3e907643f1.html?mode=jqm

They aren't going to let this go. Texas has resurrected its HB707 in the form of a Senate amendment, too.

I wonder if they'd suddenly change their tunes if Obama decided to ignore a ruling in favor of the King plaintiffs.

Spoiler

I don't have to wonder.