With all respect, it seems like the centerpiece of the Court's analysis was statutory interpretation, not constitutional rulings.
-
-
-
It is, indeed, a statutory ruling but in order to decide the 4th challenge -- lack of indep. Exec. authority -- ct. needed Constl. reasons.
-
Fair point. Maybe I downplayed it because I don't see much of a constitutional problem in reaching the question of whether the courts can review an act contrary to law.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.