And those in my state who are resisting an illegal, made-up "law", are doing exactly what I expect them to.
That one sentance shows the extent to which the NYTimes Editorial Board has surrendered logic and submitted to the contortions required to make an emotionally-driven argument sound reasonable.
The NYT Ed Board says that the clerks work for the taxpayers. Which means they don’t work for the Supreme Court. So, logically, the clerks should do what the taxpayers want and not the Court.
Thats the argument the NYT Ed Board is really making, without understanding the logical implications of the taxpayers wanting something different than the Court. Or they just assume that the taxpayers in the jurisdictions where the clerks are refusing to comply support the Court’s decision. Which could be any one of a number of logical fallicies.