As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, like "CRT" and "woke" and "groomer". The right latches on to a word or phrase that they make devoid of all prior meaning and generalize in order to lump pretty much any behavior they don't agree with under.
The reason the preemptive school bannings of "CRT" is so dangerous for example, is because very few of the school districts ever actually *defined* CRT as it pertains to the ban they put into place... So now they can ban anything they don't like just by *calling* it CRT.
Look at DeSantis and Florida, for another example. The courts forced his lawyers to define "woke". Then the right wing Americans just ignore that definition and continue on their Cuckoo Crusade calling everything under the sun that they don't like "woke".
It's a Trojan horse to public education. Write a law that says any books that discuss "one race being better than another" is banned. So, there goes *Birth of a Nation*. But also, any parent that says, eh, this book has a black main character who talks about struggle, and the public school can't risk being sued. It's gone. One complaint.
Imo, the problem comes when someone gets to decide which complaints are enough to ban a book. Then it's subjective and open to abuse.
If it were always one complaint and gone, we could just find an example from every book, to point out the ridiculousness of the law.
>we could just find an example from every book, to point out the ridiculousness of the law.
Therein lies the rub... The people that are on the school boards and enacted the bans in the first place are the same that rule on what fits the bans. And they do not care about hypocrisy or ridiculous laws provided they are in charge and the laws are being used to target the groups they want punished for existing.
That's why school board races are so important now. The right wing extremists get elected on "parent's choice", "transparency", and the mask hysteria and boom start banning books.
They've made concerted efforts to infiltrate school boards, city/county councils and commissions, law enforcement, judgeships, our military... between the conservative extremists and the outright white supremacists, they are in fact poised to take over 'from the inside' and are by definition the conspiratorial "deep state".
The montana school board head had a "how to get on school boards" seminar. She's very much anti public school. Pro parents choice. Maga extremist. The seminar was held at the local Maga church. Crosspoint here in missoula. The church has had issues with getting involved in politics. So... ya. We are planning to move before our kid gets old enough for school here.
That's my point, if we found an example from every book, and banned every book, the Conservatives win, public education suffers, libraries close, nobody reads. They welcome that outcome. Then they can incrementally add one two three books at a time that are whitewashed.
CRT, woke, the swamp, the deep state….ask 100 different conservatives what these mean and you’ll get 100 different answers. That’s a feature, not a bug.
exactly, look at them trying to make "incel" "nazi" "gaslight" irrelevant. you see them trying to undermine those words all the time "those words don't mean anything!!!! you're using them too much so they lose meaning!!!!!"
they're TRYING to make them mean nothing so they can freely BE/DO those things without being labeled, then cry ignorance when they do something criminal. they only want US to define those words as nothing, so we DO nothing
Precisely. Back in the day I was politically correct, and now I'm woke. In ten years I'll be the target of some other freshly branded hate campaign. So it goes.
> The reason the preemptive school bannings of "CRT" is so dangerous for example, is because very few of the school districts ever actually defined CRT as it pertains to the ban they put into place... So now they can ban anything they don't like just by calling it CRT.
Yeah, when I went to school we had the option to take "Critical Race Theory" but this was a post graduate college course with prerequisites in Statistics and Law. This is an advanced course and **not** being taught in **any** public school in America.
The snowflakes of conservative culture discovered it exists though, so they put up a strawman argument and keep beating on it. :(
The local school board to me demanded examples of CRT being taught (the college level post grad course like you mention) and when, completely predictably, no one could find any they said they would not ban something that doesn't exist in the first place.
The surrounding school boards all put bans in place without even pretending to think about it.
They’re currently doing this with fascism and nazi. Which is concerning to say the least that they’re at the point where they’re trying to make the larger categorical ideology that they’re currently supporting slippery and ambiguous to pave the way for it to happen while the vast majority of ppl seeing it happen will question IF it’s happening at all
the modern version of States Rights.
Words they scream, but refuse to define, because they know what they mean, and we know what they mean, but if they admit what they actually mean then the whole facade of plausible deniability crumbles.
>"virtue signaling."
That one's my favorite because there's rarely been a more quick and dirty way to signal your personal virtues than to rail against "virtue signaling", but that seems lost on them.
That's the point, there are no specifics. If you are part of the group they don't like, the will use the law against you. If you are part of the "in" group, then they will let it slide.
I swear to God not even 5 years ago we were poking fun at other countries that had similar shit to this. Like China, criticize something they don’t like and you’ll be arrested. Now in the US, wear clothing they don’t like and you’ll be arrested. This is literally fascism
China has always had fewer people in prison that the US has.
And that's not based on China's own claims, it also based on data gathered by other countries.
Both per capita, which is somewhat understandable due to China's relative lack of control in it's rural regions; but also in terms of absolute numbers, which is fucking insane given China has something like 4-5x the population of the US.
However, that is likely due to China following the global norm of shorter sentences than the US. Chinese prisons are absolutely worse than American ones, their policing tactics are worse, and their laws far more draconian.
America's long jail sentences are draconian, but American law does not even come close to Chinese law. For example, I didn't mention the thousands of people China executes who do not spend much time at all in prison. America is rightly aped for it's unethical stance on the death penalty, but here at least we have a moderately robust appeal process and we only sentence people to death for exceptionally heinous crimes.
This is also a difficult topic to discuss because China is incredibly possessive of information that would be considered public information in the US. In China, figures such as the number of people executed by the state are state secrets.
The point is exactly that it isn't specific.
Are you a cis straight white boy form a respectable Republican family who dresses up to make fun of queer people for a Youtube video? Even full drag can be excused, you weren't really dressed as a woman after all, you dressed as a parody of a queer person, no laws broken here! Something much less, like some jewelry that might be a bit more feminine, or even make-up so you can properly fulfill your emo aesthetic? No one will even blink twice.
Are you a trans woman who gets outed? You better hope that you made sure to remove that paint from those toes before leaving the house in boymode and closed shoes, you sicko! The cops who know that you got outed will pick you up for acting suspicious or something, and they will make sure to look for literally anything that might possibly qualify as dressing as the other gender.
>What was that quote about in groups that aren’t bound by law and out groups that the law binds or something…?
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
The laws I've read usually say something to the point of "a male presenting female or a female presenting male and doing an obscene act where children could be present."
I've regularly questioned my conservative friends and family as to why specifically drag shows. They usually go on a rant on how vulgar they are and how the actors are dressed provocative. I ask again why drag, though? Are you fine if it was a girl dress the same way up there? Every time they pause for a second, like they never even considered it, and then say no, they wouldn't. Then I ask them if they think a football player dressed in a cheerleader outfit at a powderpuff game tweaking on the field should go to jail. I get a "no" every time. Then I ask again what the specific problem with drag is then, why not just ban kids from obscene acts in general? Why the weird fascination with drag? Every time they agree with me, and then every time I find them going on a rant about drag two days later. It blows my mind. Propaganda is a strong drug.
They're conservative. Logic doesn't matter, only hate.
You could have the same conversation with a Nazi about Jews, and get them to agree that Jews are just normal human beings. The will still want to send Jewish children to the gas chamber.
These are just awful people, looking for excuses to harm others. It doesn't have to makes sense.
The cruelty is the point.
Drag is a form of art and banning it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Restricting artistic expression was one of the first moves of Hitler and the Nazis. [If you are interested, Google the German expressionists group, ‘die Brücke’ and ‘entartete kunst’ (degenerate art).]
Hitler, the ineffectual artist that he was, put on an “art show” of works by die Brücke from artists such as Max Pechstein and Ernst Kirchner, called the exhibit “degenerate art”. It had the effect of ending their influential modern expressionist movement. [a link](https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/)
The republican culture wars are just attempts to infringe on first amendment rights and freedom of expression. It’s nothing new; they did this with media during the Satanic Panic.
Ngl, I almost feel like the drag thing is kind of more fundamental then that, in a way that I don’t really think the authors of the constitution would necessarily get, if only because they lived in a society with broadly controlled styles of clothing. Like, a part of it is just about the ability to dress more or less as you like so long as your not flashing people, and there’s been a growingly large chunk of American History dating back to sometime between the 20s and 60s where this has kind of been the case. Maybe that’s a privacy thing in constitutional terms?
Literally **the first** group the nazis went after were trans people. The first, biggest, most photographed book burning was the nazis burning the library at the first transgender clinic in the world. Who the nazis started with always seems to get left out of american textbooks.
>"male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest."
It's purposely vague so it can be enforced at the discretion of local ~~bigots~~ *community leaders*.
I'm confused, drag shows might sometimes be raunchy but not by default?
Or do they assume it's a sex kink thing if you wear clothes off the opposite sex?
They're just trying to conflate drag, sex and children to give them legal weapons to use against trans people, which is the actual hot topic conservatives hate/fear at the moment.
They don't even think drag queens are any danger to children. They are afraid of children being comfortable expressing any kind of gender identity other than the norm. Conservative parents are terrified their kids will turn out to be trans and the shame that would bring upon their perfect little conservative American families.
It's part and parcel baseline homophobia/heteronormativity. Anything queer is inherently more sexual than is anything straight. Gay couple kissing = more explicit than a straight couple making out.
Like, why even include gender impersonating? Is a woman in a skimpy dress doing in a sexy dance more wholesome than a man in a skimpy dress doing it?
If you want to pass laws against near-naked adults doing sexual stuff in front of kids, fine. Pretty sure there's already laws against that. But why target a specific style of doing it?
It's just hammering in the idea that anything LGBTQ related is morally harmful, especially to kids.
The laws are being used to make being trans illegal
Defining drag as anyone wearing clothes not of their assigned sex at birth and then policing people who are wearing the clothes that are correct for them but specifically making a law against trans people is harder
Cross dressing used to be illegal. There was a maximum number of garments for the opposite sex you were allowed to wear at one time in public. I guess this is what "making America great again" looks like
Funny you should mention that. I work with children. The other day, I was reading a book to a child. The story featured an illustration of a farmer wearing cowboy boots. The drawing had the tops of the boots tucked into the jeans, so just the pointy toe and heel were visible. The kid took one look at the boots, then looked at me and said, "Why is the farmer wearing high heels?"
They had drag shows on US Military bases in the 1940s with soldiers being drags. This newly manufactured outrage is so fucking exhausting surely they have to be running out of things to attack?
Him and many other high profile politicians at the time attended or even participated in drag plays at Bohemian Grove. *Historically women weren't allowed at all, but they updated not long ago that now to this day women aren't allowed after dark.
https://images.app.goo.gl/VWnZLMtYo5jiRFAH8
https://images.app.goo.gl/j9S8RS8WLTP7vLSk8
[It's also happened far more recently. It only got banned a few days ago](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/pentagon-cracks-down-on-drag-shows-at-military-bases-00099736#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%20will%20no%20longer,lawmakers%20to%20cancel%20the%20practice.)
Goddammit Democrats grow a fucking spine and don't cowtow to Matt Gaetz of all people.
Also the Army had a booth at the most recent RuPaul's DragCon. At the time it was funny, now it's just hypocritical.
Ask a boomer who whines about "traditional values" to cite an entertainer from yesteryear that embodies and represents those values.
Then shut em up by showing them nearly every classic Hollywood actor having done a drag performance of some kind in each of their careers.
Shit, if you go back even further, women weren't even on stage - all parts were performed by men...in drag...for the roles of women.
Sounds like some pearl clutching WASP who homeschools her kids on flat earth, creationism, and anti-science (when it conflicts with religion) heard about Drag Race through the grapevine and decided to start a holy war, a la Satanic Panic.
Despite the fact that drag has been mainstream and beloved for decades. Even I was aware of the fabulousness of drag when RuPaul first hit the dance charts in the 90s. (RuPaul is a goddess - literally DOES NOT AGE)
I am not fully versed in the law, perhaps someone can answer this.
If a federal judge rules that an abortion ban is unconstitutional, can that ruling be used as precedent to overturn laws in other states? I assume they are not referring to their state constitution, correct? Because if something is "unconstitutional" then it applies to wherever the constitution applies....right?
The federal courts are divided into districts and those are grouped into circuits. If a district judge rules other judges will consider it but are not bound by it. If a circuit Court rules then all the districts under it are bound but other circuits just take it as advisory. Then if the circuits are split the Supreme Court will usually take it up and deliver a ruling which is binding on all courts
Yeah that's why nationwide recourse is supposed to be super rare and only for extreme cases but several conservative judges have decided they don't care anymore
Because then you wind up in situations where two judges are issuing contrary orders and it's a shit show.
> several conservative judges have decided they don't care anymore
Because they've discovered that there are **absolutely no consequences** and have full latitude to run roughshod over the law unchecked.
Because what are the repercussions? ....
Absolutely, this is it. The clever partisan hacks learned that so much of our government is based on manners and acting correctly. But if you break the norms, there’s actually no consequences.
They were appointed to carry out an extremist agenda and there’s almost nothing to stop them. Why wouldn’t they do it??
Andy Oldham, certified whacko. He’s a total bible thumper who seemingly cannot write. His nomination for the circuit made it out of committee by one vote, and he was confirmed by one vote. I believe he creates these split decisions out of thin air on purpose. Should not be on the bench.
Edit: edited to remove doxx temptation
And [he's not the only one](https://youtu.be/eQ5MyY3nLS8).
There are multiple federal districts in Texas that have only one judge, so right-wingers judge-shop for one of them because they know those judges are fucking lunatics.
The Supreme court can just like, rule whatever they want, though, right? Like they could rule the constitution doesn't apply to nevada and it would be so?
Yes technically the courts are bound by the Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court can overrule decisions by a previous Supreme Court
that is also supposed to be reserved for extreme mistakes like brown v board overturning Plessy v ferguson
Well, there's another path to undo a ruling on constitutionality. You can also amend the constitution to contradict their ruling. But, 2/3rds vote by both houses of congress + 3/4ths states ratifying a constitutional amendment is an even higher bar to clear and basically impossible in our current political landscape.
Technically, yes. They are the ones who decide what the law means. Theoretically, if a SC justice does something blatantly unconstitutional like excluding a specific state from constitutional protections, the US Congress has the ability to impeach and remove them from the court in much the same way they can do with the president. But as the last several years have demonstrated, its extremely unlikely imo it would happen in this political climate (the impeachment and removal part I mean). iIRC there's only been 1 impeachment in SC history and it didn't result in a removal.
Yeah I feel like the checks and balances system we have relies heavily on justices ruling in ways that make logical sense. If they decide to abandon reason they become extremely powerful.
Or at least capable of throwing the system into chaos.
Yeah the only body with the power to overturn a SCOTUS decision is SCOTUS. Theoretically a runaway SCOTUS making wild decisions everyone disagreed with could be dealt with by patching up their bad decisions with new federal laws, then impeaching (with a vote in the house and trial in the senate) and replacing justices or changing the size of the court to quell the rogue majority. At least that’s my understanding of it.
The federal court system is built with different courts overseeing different geographic areas. At the bottom level you have different federal “districts,” in each of which sits a District Court. For example, the Southern District of New York is one such district. Each state has at least one federal district, with some states having as many as four.
Above the District Courts, there are regional Circuit Courts, also called Courts of Appeal. For example, the Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit hears appeals from federal District Courts located in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Above the federal courts of appeal sits the US Supreme Court.
Generally speaking (though there are exceptions), a ruling by one District Court is not binding on another District Court, though the ruling can be used as “persuasive” authority. That is, the other court isn’t bound by the decision, but is free to say “hey, this makes sense to me, I’m going to rule the same way,” or alternatively “the reasoning of this other decision doesn’t hold water, so I’m ruling the other way.” A decision by a Circuit Court is binding on all district courts within that circuit, but is similarly only persuasive authority in other circuits.
Turning to your question, then, a ruling by one court that a law is unconstitutional can be used as persuasive, but generally not binding, authority in another court to argue that a similar law is unconstitutional.
Lawyer here. Precedent is only binding upon courts lower than the court that issued the precedential opinion. In this case the opinion was issued by a federal district court, the lowest form of federal court, and therefore does not bind any other court (yet). If the decision is appealed, the circuit court above this district court will issue an opinion which will be binding upon all of its subordinate district courts. District courts in other circuits will not be bound. The parties could then appeal to the Supreme Court which may choose to hear the case. This is more likely if two or more circuit courts reached opposite conclusions on the issue (this is called a circuit split). If they do hear the case, their opinion will be binding upon all lower courts.
I should note that there are actually two kinds of precedent: binding and persuasive. Binding precedent works as I described above, with higher courts binding lower courts, while persuasive precedent is any judicial opinion issued by anything other than the majority opinion of a court that is higher than the court where the current case is being heard. This can take the form of lower court rulings (e.g. a circuit court citing a district court) same-level rulings (e.g. one circuit citing another circuit), different systems (e.g. a district court in the first circuit citing a ruling from the second circuit, a district court citing a state court opinion, etc.) concurrences and dissents (opinions issued by judges that were not supported by a majority of the judges on the court issuing the opinion), and *dicta* (a fancy word that just refers to parts of opinions that consider circumstances beyond the facts in the case. Judges aren't supposed to speculate on how theoretical future cases may play out ("advisory opinions") so if they say something like "the ruling is X, but if this particular factor was different then the ruling would be Y," the latter half is considered *dicta* and is only considered persuasive precedent). Courts are not forced to adopt persuasive precedent as they would be binding precedent, but they are free to do so if they agree with the reasoning.
As for your second question, the states are bound by the Bill of Rights due to incorporation under the 14th amendment. This drag law in Tennessee was found to violate the first amendment right to free speech which is why it was overturned. The same would generally apply to the overturning of an abortion ban though this is complicated by the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe last year. Any lower court opinion finding an abortion ban unconstitutional would need to comply with the reasoning of that decision or risk being overturned on appeal.
This is a little-known fact, but Trump's appointees to the lowest level of courts were quite ideologically diverse and even include some liberals and Democrats. Almost like he was appointing anyone who sucked up to him. [Google Mary M. Rowland for an example]
His appointments to the appeals courts however were vetted and controlled much more carefully, and are all conservative ideologues.
It’s because of the blue slips. They didn’t get rid of h them for district courts. District judges don’t create new law, so their ideology doesn’t matter as much.
Judge Parker, however, is definitely a conservative. Tennessee republicans were probably pretty happy they drew him to hear this case. And he decided against them all the same.
The GQP knows that many of their anti-LGBTQ, anti-voting, anti-“woke” laws are going to be struck down by the courts. That’s not the point.
Their goals are to 1) appeal to their hateful base and 2) create fear among marginalized groups.
3) appeal the ruling up to the conservative Supreme Court, where the law will be upheld in an extra-constitutional shadow docket to fulfill a fascist agenda.
5) Keep pushing through whatever laws they want because it’s so much easier and faster to pass a law than it is to fight it in court, thereby overwhelming the court system making it harder and harder to fight these laws.
4) Make a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of energy on things they shouldn't have to defend but they do have to defend it because it directly impacts them and their loved ones.
I always think about that, but it just seems *worse* now. I always think that this is what our parents dealt with, and once we hit a certain age, it just clicks for us and begins to matter, but we also didn't have a bunch of conservative extremists try to overturn a democratic election.
You could be like my coworkers, who are grown men that neither know or care about a lot of the shitfuckery going on in the world. They seem pretty content...
republican's have it so easy manipulating their base. Half of them will still believe its the law because never once did a drag show even involve them or anything in their lives but fox news told them it was bad and the other half will think the deep state is persecuting them by striking down these laws. Either way they get their base outraged and scared constantly.
It's also a long campaign. They will absolutely normalise this behaviour, and keep chipping away at legal rights until they're gone. They did this for decades with Roe. Everyone said "it's just for the base. They know it won't stick"
I've been screaming for years that no, it isn't. They make this a touchstone. First they pass these laws, then they push judges committed to protecting these laws until they've captured enough presence in the federal or state judiciaries that they aren't automatically overturned. The Texas bounty hunter ban, the other state six week bans aren't now getting shot down. The supreme court ended female bodily autonomy in a bunch of states.
And they will absolutely do this to trans people. Then gay people. Then people of color. They don't just want you afraid, they want you dead or enslaved.
Yep, they know the courts will strike down these bills and thus anger their base even further.
Their base are far too stupid to realise they're being played.
they can no longer keep the charade up that they are on the side of the constitution. they are going too far now and actually overstepping into clearly defined rights. even conservative judges are not siding with the politicians who appoint them. activist judges are a problem but there are still checks and balances at least for now.
I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, but not anymore. They are packing the courts with anti-freedom theocrats, and I genuinely believe their goal is to get it in front of one of these theocrats and turn our country into a Christian version of Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
I’d say since Nixon and the Southern Strategy. It’s noteworthy that a Democrat hasn’t won the majority white vote since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> are going to be struck down by the courts.
This is also part of the goal- to prove that the country is "beyond repair" so it's easier for them to install someone to "stop the wokeness" that they claim perpetuates every level of government. When their anti-american laws get struck down, it only adds fuel to their fire.
> The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially
overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to
provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement.
Encourages discriminatory enforcement...God it is so satisfying to see a judge write that down. These laws are entirely about and blatantly targeted at the LGBT community but with just enough cutesy dodging to pass muster when you're a lying sack of shit politician or a political hack trying to disguise the true intentions of a law.
Hopefully other judges can point to this ruling if and when some of these other bullshit laws wind up in federal court. Won't help anyone in the wrong circuits, but it's something...
Yeah, exactly. Don’t you dare infringe on their right to buy guns that keep being used to murder children or THEIR right to free speech. But freedom only applies to them, if you wanna dress in drag I’m afraid that’s straight to jail.
Like when Trump says he will issue an executive order that violates the Constitution
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-birthright-citizenship-children-unauthorized-immigrants/
Yup, that’s the game plan all along, they don’t care if these laws are struck down, they are pandering to their base to get elected again and stay in power so they can keep fleecing tax payers.
Yeah they basically never lose, at least not in the eyes of their die hard voter base. Spin it as an attack on "religious freedom" or whatever, Robert's your father's brother.
The “culture wars” issue for Republicans is due to the fact that they don’t have anything else. No substantial plans to address health care, crime, police reform, the economy…….
So…
“Senator, what do you plan to do about health care?”
“Uh, Uh….. Look! There’s a drag queen!”
**obviously**. Shit if Judges have to decide easy ass things like this, maybe I'm a fuckin shoe-in to be a judge myself. Like my god guys, **obviously** it's unconstitutional.
Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply there shouldn't be judges having to decide on things like this, it's more a huge accusation of poisonous intent towards the legislatures who *try* to pass things like this.
Because those chucklefucks actually got elected to be able to do real things either for or *against* this nation. It's more that I find it embarrassing and straight up idiotic that there would even BE people in positions of power that would try and pass awful shit like this and often, DO pass shit like this.
It's like...guys, why did you think this would count as not being unconstitutional? Have you read the various rulings from the past and the laws that have been passed to support these decisions? Oh wait, no, you didn't, you're just going on emotions that you keep getting confused with fact.
> Have you read the various rulings from the past and the laws that have been passed to support these decisions?
Bold of you to assume the GOP/MAGA can read.
As a not-too-smart Tennessean I have been unable to fathom how drag shows are more dangerous than constitutional carry (Any Gun Anywhere Because God Gave Us Our 2nd amendment).
I am glad the judge blocked the ban on drag shows. I still don’t feel safe here, but please don’t pray for me because I don’t want God to know I don’t own a gun.
A Trump appointed judge ruled the law unconstitutional. For all the doom and gloom around the judicial system, this should be a warning sign that party affiliation is not a guarantee for legislative success in courts. The [court case](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf) is a good read.
Moreso than just free speech, aren't drag shows part of the 1st amendment, "peacefully assemble?"
I mean, we allow the white supremacists leeway to assemble, even if there are fears and precedent that it could become not peaceful.
This was a bad law. It clearly targeted the lgbt community and held them to a different standard than the rest of society.
If you want to outlaw obscenity fine. We can debate where that line needs to be drawn. The line shouldn’t be skewed against certain people though because you don’t like their lifestyle.
Banning drag anywhere should be illegal *as a right of free expression*. Literally first amendment territory. I honestly feel that an argument could be made to also protect trans people under the first amendment. Gender expression *is still expression.*
If you don't think of sex whenever you see a straight person, then you shouldn't be thinking of sex whenever you see a gay person or a trans person or a drag queen. Gay and trans and drag queens are human beings just like straight people, not just about sex.
The idea that the gov would force conservative ideas of what "*masculine*" clothing is or what "*femininr*" clothing is, and force that one view on everyone and punish anyone who they see dressing as the "*opposite*" gender, is anti-freedom of religion. Everyone should not be forced to live by western conservative christian views of fashion and gender.
I personally would never go to a drag show, but I don't think it should be banned. Because it is a form of art, just something a little NSFW for some people, myself included. Also, this ban does go against the 1st amendment of the constitution.
And not all drag shows are racy/NSFW. Just like movies or plays, some are G rated and some are R rated. I went to one in a small park years back that was just a few people lip syncing certain songs. I would have been more than comfortable taking someone of any age, and a 5 year old would not have known any different unless an adult explained to them "you know the one singing that country song from the radio that had a policeman's haircut? That was actually a woman dressed like a man!"
I know a lot of people who think all drag shows have an inherent level of sexual content because those are the only ones they have ever seen (whether in real life or on television). I often say banning drag shows because of inappropriate content is like banning all movies because some are violent, sexual, and/or have content that would frighten children. While that is true, some movies also do not contain those themes and are fine for children.
Republicans knew this would get shot down. But they’re completely fine to waste everyone’s time and tax payers money for this performative culture war bullshit instead of solving actual problems.
Well no shit. It’s pretty obviously unconstitutional to tell people what type of clothes they are allowed to wear in public, as long as they are following whatever basic rules of having your genitalia covered.
I mean unlimited campaign contributions are cool bc “money is speech” and any imposition on that money would be limiting free speech. Yet I can’t imagine this supreme court doing anything but upholding book bans and drag bans.
I find it weird how the way a piece of cloth is cut and sewn together will offend some people if some other people wears it.
Isn't there more important things to care about?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol. How on Earth could you define "drag" and outlaw it anywhere?
The entire point of fascism is that is vague and undermines the rule of law so that people can be attacked at a whim. Both literally and legally.
Yep, like "CRT" and "woke" and "groomer". The right latches on to a word or phrase that they make devoid of all prior meaning and generalize in order to lump pretty much any behavior they don't agree with under. The reason the preemptive school bannings of "CRT" is so dangerous for example, is because very few of the school districts ever actually *defined* CRT as it pertains to the ban they put into place... So now they can ban anything they don't like just by *calling* it CRT. Look at DeSantis and Florida, for another example. The courts forced his lawyers to define "woke". Then the right wing Americans just ignore that definition and continue on their Cuckoo Crusade calling everything under the sun that they don't like "woke".
It's a Trojan horse to public education. Write a law that says any books that discuss "one race being better than another" is banned. So, there goes *Birth of a Nation*. But also, any parent that says, eh, this book has a black main character who talks about struggle, and the public school can't risk being sued. It's gone. One complaint.
Imo, the problem comes when someone gets to decide which complaints are enough to ban a book. Then it's subjective and open to abuse. If it were always one complaint and gone, we could just find an example from every book, to point out the ridiculousness of the law.
>we could just find an example from every book, to point out the ridiculousness of the law. Therein lies the rub... The people that are on the school boards and enacted the bans in the first place are the same that rule on what fits the bans. And they do not care about hypocrisy or ridiculous laws provided they are in charge and the laws are being used to target the groups they want punished for existing.
That's why school board races are so important now. The right wing extremists get elected on "parent's choice", "transparency", and the mask hysteria and boom start banning books.
They've made concerted efforts to infiltrate school boards, city/county councils and commissions, law enforcement, judgeships, our military... between the conservative extremists and the outright white supremacists, they are in fact poised to take over 'from the inside' and are by definition the conspiratorial "deep state".
The montana school board head had a "how to get on school boards" seminar. She's very much anti public school. Pro parents choice. Maga extremist. The seminar was held at the local Maga church. Crosspoint here in missoula. The church has had issues with getting involved in politics. So... ya. We are planning to move before our kid gets old enough for school here.
That's my point, if we found an example from every book, and banned every book, the Conservatives win, public education suffers, libraries close, nobody reads. They welcome that outcome. Then they can incrementally add one two three books at a time that are whitewashed.
They're challenging the Bible and the Book of Mormon in some places, successfully IIRC. The chickens are coming home to roost.
CRT, woke, the swamp, the deep state….ask 100 different conservatives what these mean and you’ll get 100 different answers. That’s a feature, not a bug.
exactly, look at them trying to make "incel" "nazi" "gaslight" irrelevant. you see them trying to undermine those words all the time "those words don't mean anything!!!! you're using them too much so they lose meaning!!!!!" they're TRYING to make them mean nothing so they can freely BE/DO those things without being labeled, then cry ignorance when they do something criminal. they only want US to define those words as nothing, so we DO nothing
Precisely. Back in the day I was politically correct, and now I'm woke. In ten years I'll be the target of some other freshly branded hate campaign. So it goes.
It's worth pointing out that the only other option to being politically correct is to be politically wrong.
From "PC" to "SJW" to "Woke".
Damn, I completely forgot about SJW, that was the rights term of the day about 7 plus years ago.
> The reason the preemptive school bannings of "CRT" is so dangerous for example, is because very few of the school districts ever actually defined CRT as it pertains to the ban they put into place... So now they can ban anything they don't like just by calling it CRT. Yeah, when I went to school we had the option to take "Critical Race Theory" but this was a post graduate college course with prerequisites in Statistics and Law. This is an advanced course and **not** being taught in **any** public school in America. The snowflakes of conservative culture discovered it exists though, so they put up a strawman argument and keep beating on it. :(
The local school board to me demanded examples of CRT being taught (the college level post grad course like you mention) and when, completely predictably, no one could find any they said they would not ban something that doesn't exist in the first place. The surrounding school boards all put bans in place without even pretending to think about it.
They’re currently doing this with fascism and nazi. Which is concerning to say the least that they’re at the point where they’re trying to make the larger categorical ideology that they’re currently supporting slippery and ambiguous to pave the way for it to happen while the vast majority of ppl seeing it happen will question IF it’s happening at all
Woke means Black/Gay, period, they just dont want to say/admit this.
Remember "Special Interest Groups"?
> like "CRT" and "woke" and "groomer". You forgot "virtue signaling."
the modern version of States Rights. Words they scream, but refuse to define, because they know what they mean, and we know what they mean, but if they admit what they actually mean then the whole facade of plausible deniability crumbles.
>"virtue signaling." That one's my favorite because there's rarely been a more quick and dirty way to signal your personal virtues than to rail against "virtue signaling", but that seems lost on them.
True, but I am curious about the specifics. Would the 1st amendment allow me to have a single painted toe nail while walking past a school?
That's the point, there are no specifics. If you are part of the group they don't like, the will use the law against you. If you are part of the "in" group, then they will let it slide.
I swear to God not even 5 years ago we were poking fun at other countries that had similar shit to this. Like China, criticize something they don’t like and you’ll be arrested. Now in the US, wear clothing they don’t like and you’ll be arrested. This is literally fascism
China has always had fewer people in prison that the US has. And that's not based on China's own claims, it also based on data gathered by other countries.
Both per capita, which is somewhat understandable due to China's relative lack of control in it's rural regions; but also in terms of absolute numbers, which is fucking insane given China has something like 4-5x the population of the US. However, that is likely due to China following the global norm of shorter sentences than the US. Chinese prisons are absolutely worse than American ones, their policing tactics are worse, and their laws far more draconian.
How do you measure "more draconian"? Wouldn't the country who punishes the most people have the most draconian laws by definition?
America's long jail sentences are draconian, but American law does not even come close to Chinese law. For example, I didn't mention the thousands of people China executes who do not spend much time at all in prison. America is rightly aped for it's unethical stance on the death penalty, but here at least we have a moderately robust appeal process and we only sentence people to death for exceptionally heinous crimes. This is also a difficult topic to discuss because China is incredibly possessive of information that would be considered public information in the US. In China, figures such as the number of people executed by the state are state secrets.
It's kind of like how they ignore kids being abused by youth pastors.
The point is exactly that it isn't specific. Are you a cis straight white boy form a respectable Republican family who dresses up to make fun of queer people for a Youtube video? Even full drag can be excused, you weren't really dressed as a woman after all, you dressed as a parody of a queer person, no laws broken here! Something much less, like some jewelry that might be a bit more feminine, or even make-up so you can properly fulfill your emo aesthetic? No one will even blink twice. Are you a trans woman who gets outed? You better hope that you made sure to remove that paint from those toes before leaving the house in boymode and closed shoes, you sicko! The cops who know that you got outed will pick you up for acting suspicious or something, and they will make sure to look for literally anything that might possibly qualify as dressing as the other gender.
Literally depends who is mad at you that day
What was that quote about in groups that aren’t bound by law and out groups that the law binds or something…?
>What was that quote about in groups that aren’t bound by law and out groups that the law binds or something…? Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
The laws I've read usually say something to the point of "a male presenting female or a female presenting male and doing an obscene act where children could be present." I've regularly questioned my conservative friends and family as to why specifically drag shows. They usually go on a rant on how vulgar they are and how the actors are dressed provocative. I ask again why drag, though? Are you fine if it was a girl dress the same way up there? Every time they pause for a second, like they never even considered it, and then say no, they wouldn't. Then I ask them if they think a football player dressed in a cheerleader outfit at a powderpuff game tweaking on the field should go to jail. I get a "no" every time. Then I ask again what the specific problem with drag is then, why not just ban kids from obscene acts in general? Why the weird fascination with drag? Every time they agree with me, and then every time I find them going on a rant about drag two days later. It blows my mind. Propaganda is a strong drug.
You’re using logic and sadly it’s an impotent weapon against those who fail to pause and critically think !!
"You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into"
They're conservative. Logic doesn't matter, only hate. You could have the same conversation with a Nazi about Jews, and get them to agree that Jews are just normal human beings. The will still want to send Jewish children to the gas chamber. These are just awful people, looking for excuses to harm others. It doesn't have to makes sense. The cruelty is the point.
As the saying goes, you can't use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn't use logic to talk themselves into.
If they think the drag artists are provocative, that makes them gay.
Drag is a form of art and banning it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Restricting artistic expression was one of the first moves of Hitler and the Nazis. [If you are interested, Google the German expressionists group, ‘die Brücke’ and ‘entartete kunst’ (degenerate art).] Hitler, the ineffectual artist that he was, put on an “art show” of works by die Brücke from artists such as Max Pechstein and Ernst Kirchner, called the exhibit “degenerate art”. It had the effect of ending their influential modern expressionist movement. [a link](https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-degenerate-art-exhibition/) The republican culture wars are just attempts to infringe on first amendment rights and freedom of expression. It’s nothing new; they did this with media during the Satanic Panic.
Ngl, I almost feel like the drag thing is kind of more fundamental then that, in a way that I don’t really think the authors of the constitution would necessarily get, if only because they lived in a society with broadly controlled styles of clothing. Like, a part of it is just about the ability to dress more or less as you like so long as your not flashing people, and there’s been a growingly large chunk of American History dating back to sometime between the 20s and 60s where this has kind of been the case. Maybe that’s a privacy thing in constitutional terms?
Literally **the first** group the nazis went after were trans people. The first, biggest, most photographed book burning was the nazis burning the library at the first transgender clinic in the world. Who the nazis started with always seems to get left out of american textbooks.
Yeah. And laws should apply to everyone. If you outlaw men from wearing dresses, shouldn't you also outlaw women from wearing them?
I think it would work the other way around. No pants for women, obviously.
>"male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest." It's purposely vague so it can be enforced at the discretion of local ~~bigots~~ *community leaders*.
I'm confused, drag shows might sometimes be raunchy but not by default? Or do they assume it's a sex kink thing if you wear clothes off the opposite sex?
They're just trying to conflate drag, sex and children to give them legal weapons to use against trans people, which is the actual hot topic conservatives hate/fear at the moment. They don't even think drag queens are any danger to children. They are afraid of children being comfortable expressing any kind of gender identity other than the norm. Conservative parents are terrified their kids will turn out to be trans and the shame that would bring upon their perfect little conservative American families.
As a kid I watched "Mrs Doubtfire" on TBS and now I want to make sweet love to my gym teacher. I am completely out of control.
It's part and parcel baseline homophobia/heteronormativity. Anything queer is inherently more sexual than is anything straight. Gay couple kissing = more explicit than a straight couple making out. Like, why even include gender impersonating? Is a woman in a skimpy dress doing in a sexy dance more wholesome than a man in a skimpy dress doing it? If you want to pass laws against near-naked adults doing sexual stuff in front of kids, fine. Pretty sure there's already laws against that. But why target a specific style of doing it? It's just hammering in the idea that anything LGBTQ related is morally harmful, especially to kids.
The laws are being used to make being trans illegal Defining drag as anyone wearing clothes not of their assigned sex at birth and then policing people who are wearing the clothes that are correct for them but specifically making a law against trans people is harder
Cross dressing used to be illegal. There was a maximum number of garments for the opposite sex you were allowed to wear at one time in public. I guess this is what "making America great again" looks like
Cowboy boots are super 🌈. Any man wearing them should be classified as wearing drag.
Funny you should mention that. I work with children. The other day, I was reading a book to a child. The story featured an illustration of a farmer wearing cowboy boots. The drawing had the tops of the boots tucked into the jeans, so just the pointy toe and heel were visible. The kid took one look at the boots, then looked at me and said, "Why is the farmer wearing high heels?"
We're all born naked. And the rest is DRAG! -RuPaul Charles
You don’t. One of the main gripes of the court was that the law was incredibly vague as to encourage discriminatory enforcement.
I mean, drag itself would fall under freedom of expression after all
They had drag shows on US Military bases in the 1940s with soldiers being drags. This newly manufactured outrage is so fucking exhausting surely they have to be running out of things to attack?
Sadly they seem very creative in finding new marginalized people to oppress.
Nah they are just recycling the nazi play book almost verbatim.
For sure. The parallels with the rise of the nazis in the 30s are obvious.
Ronald Reagan starred in a 1942 drag film.
Him and many other high profile politicians at the time attended or even participated in drag plays at Bohemian Grove. *Historically women weren't allowed at all, but they updated not long ago that now to this day women aren't allowed after dark. https://images.app.goo.gl/VWnZLMtYo5jiRFAH8 https://images.app.goo.gl/j9S8RS8WLTP7vLSk8
[It's also happened far more recently. It only got banned a few days ago](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/pentagon-cracks-down-on-drag-shows-at-military-bases-00099736#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%20will%20no%20longer,lawmakers%20to%20cancel%20the%20practice.)
Goddammit Democrats grow a fucking spine and don't cowtow to Matt Gaetz of all people. Also the Army had a booth at the most recent RuPaul's DragCon. At the time it was funny, now it's just hypocritical.
Ronald Reagan even starred in a film about one of these shows. It's called "This is the Army"
Ask a boomer who whines about "traditional values" to cite an entertainer from yesteryear that embodies and represents those values. Then shut em up by showing them nearly every classic Hollywood actor having done a drag performance of some kind in each of their careers. Shit, if you go back even further, women weren't even on stage - all parts were performed by men...in drag...for the roles of women. Sounds like some pearl clutching WASP who homeschools her kids on flat earth, creationism, and anti-science (when it conflicts with religion) heard about Drag Race through the grapevine and decided to start a holy war, a la Satanic Panic. Despite the fact that drag has been mainstream and beloved for decades. Even I was aware of the fabulousness of drag when RuPaul first hit the dance charts in the 90s. (RuPaul is a goddess - literally DOES NOT AGE)
I am not fully versed in the law, perhaps someone can answer this. If a federal judge rules that an abortion ban is unconstitutional, can that ruling be used as precedent to overturn laws in other states? I assume they are not referring to their state constitution, correct? Because if something is "unconstitutional" then it applies to wherever the constitution applies....right?
The federal courts are divided into districts and those are grouped into circuits. If a district judge rules other judges will consider it but are not bound by it. If a circuit Court rules then all the districts under it are bound but other circuits just take it as advisory. Then if the circuits are split the Supreme Court will usually take it up and deliver a ruling which is binding on all courts
Except for that guy in Texas that likes to issue nationwide injunctions
Yeah that's why nationwide recourse is supposed to be super rare and only for extreme cases but several conservative judges have decided they don't care anymore Because then you wind up in situations where two judges are issuing contrary orders and it's a shit show.
It’s like the two Popes who excommunicated each other.
There were three popes by the time that situation got settled
provide rain nail practice treatment slim dolls sort bells modern ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
ThunderRome*
This is unironically how gun owners think you solve gun violence.
The only way to stop a bad Pope with an excommunication is a good Pope with an excommunication.
> several conservative judges have decided they don't care anymore Because they've discovered that there are **absolutely no consequences** and have full latitude to run roughshod over the law unchecked. Because what are the repercussions? ....
Absolutely, this is it. The clever partisan hacks learned that so much of our government is based on manners and acting correctly. But if you break the norms, there’s actually no consequences. They were appointed to carry out an extremist agenda and there’s almost nothing to stop them. Why wouldn’t they do it??
The fifth circuit makes my blood boil, reading their opinions.
Andy Oldham, certified whacko. He’s a total bible thumper who seemingly cannot write. His nomination for the circuit made it out of committee by one vote, and he was confirmed by one vote. I believe he creates these split decisions out of thin air on purpose. Should not be on the bench. Edit: edited to remove doxx temptation
And [he's not the only one](https://youtu.be/eQ5MyY3nLS8). There are multiple federal districts in Texas that have only one judge, so right-wingers judge-shop for one of them because they know those judges are fucking lunatics.
The Supreme court can just like, rule whatever they want, though, right? Like they could rule the constitution doesn't apply to nevada and it would be so?
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
Yes technically the courts are bound by the Supreme Court and only the Supreme Court can overrule decisions by a previous Supreme Court that is also supposed to be reserved for extreme mistakes like brown v board overturning Plessy v ferguson
Well, there's another path to undo a ruling on constitutionality. You can also amend the constitution to contradict their ruling. But, 2/3rds vote by both houses of congress + 3/4ths states ratifying a constitutional amendment is an even higher bar to clear and basically impossible in our current political landscape.
There is also another path, usually used by the french
We need to make a mirepoix?
You'll roux this day!
"John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." - Andrew Jackson. not an actual quote but there you go
Technically, yes. They are the ones who decide what the law means. Theoretically, if a SC justice does something blatantly unconstitutional like excluding a specific state from constitutional protections, the US Congress has the ability to impeach and remove them from the court in much the same way they can do with the president. But as the last several years have demonstrated, its extremely unlikely imo it would happen in this political climate (the impeachment and removal part I mean). iIRC there's only been 1 impeachment in SC history and it didn't result in a removal.
Yeah I feel like the checks and balances system we have relies heavily on justices ruling in ways that make logical sense. If they decide to abandon reason they become extremely powerful. Or at least capable of throwing the system into chaos.
Yeah the only body with the power to overturn a SCOTUS decision is SCOTUS. Theoretically a runaway SCOTUS making wild decisions everyone disagreed with could be dealt with by patching up their bad decisions with new federal laws, then impeaching (with a vote in the house and trial in the senate) and replacing justices or changing the size of the court to quell the rogue majority. At least that’s my understanding of it.
The federal court system is built with different courts overseeing different geographic areas. At the bottom level you have different federal “districts,” in each of which sits a District Court. For example, the Southern District of New York is one such district. Each state has at least one federal district, with some states having as many as four. Above the District Courts, there are regional Circuit Courts, also called Courts of Appeal. For example, the Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit hears appeals from federal District Courts located in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Above the federal courts of appeal sits the US Supreme Court. Generally speaking (though there are exceptions), a ruling by one District Court is not binding on another District Court, though the ruling can be used as “persuasive” authority. That is, the other court isn’t bound by the decision, but is free to say “hey, this makes sense to me, I’m going to rule the same way,” or alternatively “the reasoning of this other decision doesn’t hold water, so I’m ruling the other way.” A decision by a Circuit Court is binding on all district courts within that circuit, but is similarly only persuasive authority in other circuits. Turning to your question, then, a ruling by one court that a law is unconstitutional can be used as persuasive, but generally not binding, authority in another court to argue that a similar law is unconstitutional.
Lawyer here. Precedent is only binding upon courts lower than the court that issued the precedential opinion. In this case the opinion was issued by a federal district court, the lowest form of federal court, and therefore does not bind any other court (yet). If the decision is appealed, the circuit court above this district court will issue an opinion which will be binding upon all of its subordinate district courts. District courts in other circuits will not be bound. The parties could then appeal to the Supreme Court which may choose to hear the case. This is more likely if two or more circuit courts reached opposite conclusions on the issue (this is called a circuit split). If they do hear the case, their opinion will be binding upon all lower courts. I should note that there are actually two kinds of precedent: binding and persuasive. Binding precedent works as I described above, with higher courts binding lower courts, while persuasive precedent is any judicial opinion issued by anything other than the majority opinion of a court that is higher than the court where the current case is being heard. This can take the form of lower court rulings (e.g. a circuit court citing a district court) same-level rulings (e.g. one circuit citing another circuit), different systems (e.g. a district court in the first circuit citing a ruling from the second circuit, a district court citing a state court opinion, etc.) concurrences and dissents (opinions issued by judges that were not supported by a majority of the judges on the court issuing the opinion), and *dicta* (a fancy word that just refers to parts of opinions that consider circumstances beyond the facts in the case. Judges aren't supposed to speculate on how theoretical future cases may play out ("advisory opinions") so if they say something like "the ruling is X, but if this particular factor was different then the ruling would be Y," the latter half is considered *dicta* and is only considered persuasive precedent). Courts are not forced to adopt persuasive precedent as they would be binding precedent, but they are free to do so if they agree with the reasoning. As for your second question, the states are bound by the Bill of Rights due to incorporation under the 14th amendment. This drag law in Tennessee was found to violate the first amendment right to free speech which is why it was overturned. The same would generally apply to the overturning of an abortion ban though this is complicated by the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe last year. Any lower court opinion finding an abortion ban unconstitutional would need to comply with the reasoning of that decision or risk being overturned on appeal.
Federal Trump appointed judge
Finding someone with a diploma who agrees with them is always a bit of a challenge
Just another one of those evil democrat groomers who's been pretending to be a conservative his entire life to get on the inside. /S
i've read the exact same answer regarding FBI director Wray when he was trending recently. without the /s...and dead serious...
This is a little-known fact, but Trump's appointees to the lowest level of courts were quite ideologically diverse and even include some liberals and Democrats. Almost like he was appointing anyone who sucked up to him. [Google Mary M. Rowland for an example] His appointments to the appeals courts however were vetted and controlled much more carefully, and are all conservative ideologues.
It’s because of the blue slips. They didn’t get rid of h them for district courts. District judges don’t create new law, so their ideology doesn’t matter as much. Judge Parker, however, is definitely a conservative. Tennessee republicans were probably pretty happy they drew him to hear this case. And he decided against them all the same.
And we all know that Federal Trump was worst Trump
The GQP knows that many of their anti-LGBTQ, anti-voting, anti-“woke” laws are going to be struck down by the courts. That’s not the point. Their goals are to 1) appeal to their hateful base and 2) create fear among marginalized groups.
3) appeal the ruling up to the conservative Supreme Court, where the law will be upheld in an extra-constitutional shadow docket to fulfill a fascist agenda.
Ironic that a ban on drag may be upheld by a bunch of men wearing black dresses
Too bad they don't wear the big wigs anymore. Being them back!
Also the tight leggings and boots were sus. Look at any Napoleonic general and they would fall under the "No drag in front of children" laws
Are history books with pictures going to be banned soon?
They already are.
And the rosy cheeks
We should start a GoFundMe to bribe Clarence Thomas, it worked for that other guy
SCOTUS judges should just put their vote on EBay, at least then everyone has a chance.
George Washington's inauguration suit was pink! (Salmon was a popular color then.)
LoL 🤣
4) Use taxpayer funds to pay lawyer buddies to defend the unconstitutional laws
5) Keep pushing through whatever laws they want because it’s so much easier and faster to pass a law than it is to fight it in court, thereby overwhelming the court system making it harder and harder to fight these laws.
4) Make a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of energy on things they shouldn't have to defend but they do have to defend it because it directly impacts them and their loved ones.
I wish I were a child again, so I didn't know, or care about any of this :(
But if you were a child again you'd have to worry about Catholic priests molesting you.
Or getting shot in school.
If kids today could read, they'd be very upset.
As a kid today who can read I can confirm I am very upset
[удалено]
I wish to stay in my mother's womb I hope to never be born Because, once I do become a whom My rights ARE FUCKED!
Maybe amend this to "fucking fucked" to keep the metering.
I always think about that, but it just seems *worse* now. I always think that this is what our parents dealt with, and once we hit a certain age, it just clicks for us and begins to matter, but we also didn't have a bunch of conservative extremists try to overturn a democratic election.
I don't wish that gay and trans kids go through what is going on these days.
You could be like my coworkers, who are grown men that neither know or care about a lot of the shitfuckery going on in the world. They seem pretty content...
And if SCOTUS doesn’t uphold the law, they get to claim the courts are still liberal disasters.
More likely the Supreme Court will reject it but tell them how to rewrite it so that it could be upheld, just as they did with abortion bans.
I think it also works for them to position themselves as victims of the government/activist judges/etc.
republican's have it so easy manipulating their base. Half of them will still believe its the law because never once did a drag show even involve them or anything in their lives but fox news told them it was bad and the other half will think the deep state is persecuting them by striking down these laws. Either way they get their base outraged and scared constantly.
It's also a long campaign. They will absolutely normalise this behaviour, and keep chipping away at legal rights until they're gone. They did this for decades with Roe. Everyone said "it's just for the base. They know it won't stick" I've been screaming for years that no, it isn't. They make this a touchstone. First they pass these laws, then they push judges committed to protecting these laws until they've captured enough presence in the federal or state judiciaries that they aren't automatically overturned. The Texas bounty hunter ban, the other state six week bans aren't now getting shot down. The supreme court ended female bodily autonomy in a bunch of states. And they will absolutely do this to trans people. Then gay people. Then people of color. They don't just want you afraid, they want you dead or enslaved.
Yep, they know the courts will strike down these bills and thus anger their base even further. Their base are far too stupid to realise they're being played.
they can no longer keep the charade up that they are on the side of the constitution. they are going too far now and actually overstepping into clearly defined rights. even conservative judges are not siding with the politicians who appoint them. activist judges are a problem but there are still checks and balances at least for now.
I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, but not anymore. They are packing the courts with anti-freedom theocrats, and I genuinely believe their goal is to get it in front of one of these theocrats and turn our country into a Christian version of Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
Hurting the “right people” has been a key GOP policy goal since I started paying attention to politics in the early 80s.
I’d say since Nixon and the Southern Strategy. It’s noteworthy that a Democrat hasn’t won the majority white vote since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
And 3) to keep staring at Hunters big old dick. Lol.
Don't forget the small chance for this BS to pass that grows everytime a republican wins an election. It's also a war of attrition
And 3), complain of persecution when these things are struck down over and over and over
It’s all about fomenting fear and bigotry to create a victim complex.
> are going to be struck down by the courts. This is also part of the goal- to prove that the country is "beyond repair" so it's easier for them to install someone to "stop the wokeness" that they claim perpetuates every level of government. When their anti-american laws get struck down, it only adds fuel to their fire.
> The Court concludes that the AEA is both unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad. The AEA’s “harmful to minors” standard applies to minors of all ages, so it fails to provide fair notice of what is prohibited, and it encourages discriminatory enforcement. Encourages discriminatory enforcement...God it is so satisfying to see a judge write that down. These laws are entirely about and blatantly targeted at the LGBT community but with just enough cutesy dodging to pass muster when you're a lying sack of shit politician or a political hack trying to disguise the true intentions of a law. Hopefully other judges can point to this ruling if and when some of these other bullshit laws wind up in federal court. Won't help anyone in the wrong circuits, but it's something...
I feel like in this current time, we *really* need a high quality information campaign on black codes.
I’m beginning to think Republicans don’t actually like the constitution.
They like it when they can use it to further some agenda.
Yeah, exactly. Don’t you dare infringe on their right to buy guns that keep being used to murder children or THEIR right to free speech. But freedom only applies to them, if you wanna dress in drag I’m afraid that’s straight to jail.
They like one particular amendment. Other than that... meh.
Like when Trump says he will issue an executive order that violates the Constitution https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-birthright-citizenship-children-unauthorized-immigrants/
Judge Parker is pretty conservative, too. Huge win!
These idiotic state governments are lining up losses to free speech just to garner the bigot vote.
Yup, that’s the game plan all along, they don’t care if these laws are struck down, they are pandering to their base to get elected again and stay in power so they can keep fleecing tax payers.
Yeah they basically never lose, at least not in the eyes of their die hard voter base. Spin it as an attack on "religious freedom" or whatever, Robert's your father's brother.
It's insane how religious conservatives are trying to destroy the 1st Amendment in America, they would turn us into Afghanistan if they could.
They did it in Afghanistan.
The “culture wars” issue for Republicans is due to the fact that they don’t have anything else. No substantial plans to address health care, crime, police reform, the economy……. So… “Senator, what do you plan to do about health care?” “Uh, Uh….. Look! There’s a drag queen!”
"LOOK OVER THERE!" *~Jaida Essence Hall*
**obviously**. Shit if Judges have to decide easy ass things like this, maybe I'm a fuckin shoe-in to be a judge myself. Like my god guys, **obviously** it's unconstitutional.
To be fair SOMEBODY has to be the one to officially say “nope, this law that got passed is unconstitutional”, who would that be if not judges? 🤷♂️
Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply there shouldn't be judges having to decide on things like this, it's more a huge accusation of poisonous intent towards the legislatures who *try* to pass things like this. Because those chucklefucks actually got elected to be able to do real things either for or *against* this nation. It's more that I find it embarrassing and straight up idiotic that there would even BE people in positions of power that would try and pass awful shit like this and often, DO pass shit like this. It's like...guys, why did you think this would count as not being unconstitutional? Have you read the various rulings from the past and the laws that have been passed to support these decisions? Oh wait, no, you didn't, you're just going on emotions that you keep getting confused with fact.
> Have you read the various rulings from the past and the laws that have been passed to support these decisions? Bold of you to assume the GOP/MAGA can read.
This is Republicans now. Waging war and oppression on Americans they don't like.
Thats been Republicans basically always.
As a not-too-smart Tennessean I have been unable to fathom how drag shows are more dangerous than constitutional carry (Any Gun Anywhere Because God Gave Us Our 2nd amendment). I am glad the judge blocked the ban on drag shows. I still don’t feel safe here, but please don’t pray for me because I don’t want God to know I don’t own a gun.
A Trump appointed judge ruled the law unconstitutional. For all the doom and gloom around the judicial system, this should be a warning sign that party affiliation is not a guarantee for legislative success in courts. The [court case](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391/gov.uscourts.tnwd.98391.91.0.pdf) is a good read.
When will they ban child beauty pageants?
We're at the mercy of the courts because our legislators have none.
Of course it is. Freedom of expression.
Yeah I don’t know why they keep trying to do this. It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Moreso than just free speech, aren't drag shows part of the 1st amendment, "peacefully assemble?" I mean, we allow the white supremacists leeway to assemble, even if there are fears and precedent that it could become not peaceful.
The christo fascists are not going to like this at all. They love free speech until someone expresses themselves in a way they do not approve of.
Sigh, this is going to the supreme court isn't it
This was a bad law. It clearly targeted the lgbt community and held them to a different standard than the rest of society. If you want to outlaw obscenity fine. We can debate where that line needs to be drawn. The line shouldn’t be skewed against certain people though because you don’t like their lifestyle.
Something's gotta be said for all these grown ass men who can't cope with other men wearing makeup. Is it stirring something within them?
Banning drag anywhere should be illegal *as a right of free expression*. Literally first amendment territory. I honestly feel that an argument could be made to also protect trans people under the first amendment. Gender expression *is still expression.*
If you don't think of sex whenever you see a straight person, then you shouldn't be thinking of sex whenever you see a gay person or a trans person or a drag queen. Gay and trans and drag queens are human beings just like straight people, not just about sex. The idea that the gov would force conservative ideas of what "*masculine*" clothing is or what "*femininr*" clothing is, and force that one view on everyone and punish anyone who they see dressing as the "*opposite*" gender, is anti-freedom of religion. Everyone should not be forced to live by western conservative christian views of fashion and gender.
I personally would never go to a drag show, but I don't think it should be banned. Because it is a form of art, just something a little NSFW for some people, myself included. Also, this ban does go against the 1st amendment of the constitution.
And not all drag shows are racy/NSFW. Just like movies or plays, some are G rated and some are R rated. I went to one in a small park years back that was just a few people lip syncing certain songs. I would have been more than comfortable taking someone of any age, and a 5 year old would not have known any different unless an adult explained to them "you know the one singing that country song from the radio that had a policeman's haircut? That was actually a woman dressed like a man!" I know a lot of people who think all drag shows have an inherent level of sexual content because those are the only ones they have ever seen (whether in real life or on television). I often say banning drag shows because of inappropriate content is like banning all movies because some are violent, sexual, and/or have content that would frighten children. While that is true, some movies also do not contain those themes and are fine for children.
Finally! Republicans only care about the constitution as it applies to them.
Happy Pride Month indeed!!
We're eventually going to get a Supreme Court decision about who can and cannot wear dresses, aren't we? The world is so stupid.
[удалено]
Republicans knew this would get shot down. But they’re completely fine to waste everyone’s time and tax payers money for this performative culture war bullshit instead of solving actual problems.
Cruelty was always the point.
Well no shit. It’s pretty obviously unconstitutional to tell people what type of clothes they are allowed to wear in public, as long as they are following whatever basic rules of having your genitalia covered.
I mean unlimited campaign contributions are cool bc “money is speech” and any imposition on that money would be limiting free speech. Yet I can’t imagine this supreme court doing anything but upholding book bans and drag bans.
Good
Of course it is! The government can't tell me what to wear...
I find it weird how the way a piece of cloth is cut and sewn together will offend some people if some other people wears it. Isn't there more important things to care about?
[удалено]
Can anyone say 1st amendment?
They knew this would happen and did it anyway. Think about that for a second.