• Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’d think a Judge would know the text of the 14th amendment, but this is Texas, after all.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will probably stand by her bigotry and refuse to enforce the constitution that they’ve turned into birdcage liner in the name of Republican Jesus.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. And I don’t get how Bostock vs Clayton County doesn’t trump all this bullshit? It says that protection for sex also covers gender identity and sexual orientation because those 2 things are in-part defined by sex already.

      Wouldn’t that case mean all these anti-gay, anti-trans laws are already unconstitutional?

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your stare decisis and precedent have no power here.

        This court has thrown out standing, precedent, and even basic honesty about relevant core facts and history. The Psycho Six are effectively now our House of Lords, and they will rule over us for decades, effectively without restraint.

        They can arrogate power at their leisure, abrogate the expressed will of the people on a whim, and alternately cripple and turbocharge the executive branch, based solely on who is president.

    • doricub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The latest Supreme Court ruling on whether you had to serve customers whose message you disagreed with even if it is a message related to a protected class, was actually relatively narrow in scope. Unfortunately, the media did a bad job of reporting the actual opinion rather than the multiple procedural problems related to the case that should have stopped it dead in the water.

      I do agree with the slippery slope reporting that likely future rulings may actually allow for refusal of service even if the customer is from a protected class unfortunately.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tribunal of Six figured out some mental gymnastics that let them declare the 14th amendment unconstitutional.

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re doing something worse: They will bend it to exclusively service the rights of the white Christian community. Look at how much of their Harvard/UNC decision was couched as the logical outcome of black civil rights.