• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It goes without saying that this absolutely will not pass constitutional muster.

    You can categorically try to ban pornography but the second you try to ban it based on its content and not based on it being pornography you no longer have a leg to stand on.

    I wish there were some way to have criminal consequences for deliberately passing unconstitutional laws. It definitely feels like it’s some kind of sedition, violating your implicit or explicit oath of office so profoundly.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s why it’s a civil matter. They ruled that civil suits don’t have to follow the Constitution.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard from them and they’re the current Supreme Court, I’ve heard a lot of dumb things from those motherfuckers

    • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      IMO, as depressing as the thought is, we are rapidly transitioning/declining to a post-Constitution America. It makes sense, because conservatives have never really embraced the notion of a secular document as the law of the land, which can be used to shield individuals and minorities from their abusive moralistic patriarchal regimes. Now they have a chance, many chances in fact, to “right the wrongs” they suffered as a matter of enlightened compromise made in good faith. And we are seeing it everywhere.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Trump is going to be a presidential candidate and more than likely win, and you’re talking about constitutional muster.