@Teri_Kanefield@carton383@LLS@StephanieJones Understood, Teri, and I'm looking forward to your piece. To clarify, though, I'm not outraged by the decision (with which I agree, though not the "per curiam" (ie majority) opinion); my sad laugh is at the logical inconsistency of saying that Constitutional provisions (other than those granting Congress a power, like the Commerce Clause) can be limited by laws Congress passes, because then the Constitution becomes inferior to politics rather than being the indestructible container within which politics take place. In this case, "Congress can remove a disability" ≠ "the disability is meaningless unless Congress affirmatively enables it," which should be obvious but apparently isn't to a SCOTUS majority.