• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    1 year ago

    This law is categorically unconstitutional. It is a prima facie contradiction of multiple specific amendments in the bill of rights. This will certainly be thrown out - even hard-right judges won’t be able to justify this. It’s clearly not reasonable in the slightest.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      even hard-right judges won’t be able to justify this.

      They don’t have to justify anything any more. You should stop pretending the constitution matters.

    • Archer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      even hard-right judges won’t be able to justify this. It’s clearly not reasonable in the slightest.

      I dunno about that, Supreme Court looking pretty right wing lately

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The SC wants to maintain the roots of their power. Undercutting certain parts of the constitution does the opposite of that, because it implies others can do the same in areas they don’t want touched.