On: Supreme Court declines to hear cases over qualifie...

[LanceH]

It is a common tactic to claim support for something popular when you know it can't pass.

Last I checked, the Democrats are in charge of virtually all of the cities where this is happening, as well as most of the states. No reason this can't get done at the state and local levels.

[couchand → LanceH]

Well, the supremacy clause, for one.

[wnoise → couchand]

That keeps them from altering the contours of 42 USC 1943 to eliminate QI, but it doesn't prevent them from adding a parallel redress under state law.

[veeralpatel979 → couchand]

I thought the supremacy clause applies only when federal and state law are in conflict?

[aesh2Xa1 → veeralpatel979]

And isn't that a reason States could not contradict a federal law of exactly this sort?

[ashtonkem → aesh2Xa1]

Unclear to me.

If QI was a law, the supremacy clause would certainly apply.

But QI is not a law, however it is a policy created by the courts based on federal law. It’s not clear to me whether the supremacy clause applies here, but I suspect it does.