• unmagical
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    26 days ago

    That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on reproductive health and weed.

    Way to rule instead of represent.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on reproductive health and weed. anything.

      There would literally be no reason for ballot initiatives at all any more. And who’s to say that Utah wouldn’t try to say this applies to elections too? “Republicans argued it would be dangerous to have certain people elected to government that cannot be substantially controlled.”

      And remember. This Supreme Court.

      Remember, there was a time when only white male landowners could vote. Senators weren’t elected. The VP was whoever was 2nd place in the Presidential race. There would be nothing stopping this supreme court from using this law to take us right back there if not even further back under the guise of “constitutional originalism” or whatever flimsy justification they use. Could be considered too dangerous. And if those pesky things like “laws” are too dangerous for Republicans, let me tell you about brown people. Or black people. Or Democrats. Sit down, lady. Yes, you. The Utah government has just decided that women voting is just too dangerous, so since you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t matter any more.

      And since this bill is designed to be retroactive, what’s to stop them from doing something like this:

      • Bill: “This bill would make marijuana legal.”
      • Voters: “OK!”
      • Legislators: Thanks for passing this! But it’s too dangerous. New version: “This bill would make marijuana legal punishable by a 10 year minimum prison sentence.” Now go round 'em up, boys! The voters voted for it! 10 year prison sentences for everybody!