View Single Post
  #61  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:07 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
1) I have only a cursory understanding of this law (which is a good bit more than many of the Dopers posting in this thread have demonstrated), but I haven't yet found anything in it I object to.

2) I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that precludes it. I understand that it is likely to run afoul of current Supreme Court precedent, but one of the goals is presumably to challenge that very precedent. I guess we'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says. I certainly hope they'll find it Constitutional.

3) N/A

4) I haven't given it much consideration, but probably not. More importantly, for this thread, I don't believe this law does that, Slate's nonsense notwithstanding.
Lest any doubts remain, this is how authoritarianism and fascism become mainstream in an ostensibly free democratic society:

1) Restrict the ability of an identifiable segment of a population to exercise previously well established civil/personal rights.

2) Stack the courts and key government administrations to oppose any legal challenge to ensure overturn of standing law in favor of newly imposed restrictions.

3) Openly declare contempt for legal precedent and standing law by ignoring it entirely.

4) Trivialize and dismiss warnings of obviously dangerous downstream consequences of all of the above as mere alarmist "nonsense".


This right here is how some of the worst recorded events of human history repeat themselves.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 05-08-2019 at 05:09 PM.