206

submitted 6 months ago by VILenin@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 53 points 6 months ago

While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed

Oh, my. Hohoohohooooooyhooasfoohooasfoi;jmsdkl;fmn iwaek ln sdaf oh shit.as.d fasdf'ojka;sdmkaf kjasdfiiidiiiiiiiiiiii oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooasd

[-] itappearsthat@hexbear.net 50 points 6 months ago

I have never read a harder cope sentence than "sharp concurrence". Like we make fun of these people for fetishizing losing and dissent, now they fetishize agreeing? What the actual fuck lmao?

[-] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 37 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I like etymology and looking things up. But I don't think I even did a quickie google of the judge/justice use of "concurrence" because legal shit can be so tedious.

---

Nina edit

TIL - there's something even more lib than a "withering dissent". A "sharp concurrence" is the most lib thing possible. I thought a concurring opinion might be complicated. Nope. It's very simple.

Concurring opinion

In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for their decision.