I can’t wait to read the legal gymnastics the SCOTUS is going to barf out to OK this!
“You see the 1st amendment only protects the party in power…”
“If that speech makes the leader of the country sad, then it cannot be protected by the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold!”
“Because of this precedent we’re choosing to interpret completely opposite to its history being taught in law schools, the 1st amendment only protects registered Republicans. But, and this is important, this isn’t setting precedent. This is a one-off. You know, legal no backsies!”
In reality, they’ll probably just refuse to take it up if the most recent federal appeal comes down the “right” way. Because they’re cowards. Like most of the government.
I can’t wait to read the legal gymnastics the SCOTUS is going to barf out to OK this!
“You see the 1st amendment only protects the party in power…”
“If that speech makes the leader of the country sad, then it cannot be protected by the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold!”
“Because of this precedent we’re choosing to interpret completely opposite to its history being taught in law schools, the 1st amendment only protects registered Republicans. But, and this is important, this isn’t setting precedent. This is a one-off. You know, legal no backsies!”
In reality, they’ll probably just refuse to take it up if the most recent federal appeal comes down the “right” way. Because they’re cowards. Like most of the government.
Or dump it into the shadow docket and say it’s ok with no justification at all.