2y ago

Supreme Court says Florida can’t enforce anti-drag law

www.cnn.com

Supreme Court says Florida can’t enforce anti-drag law | CNN Politics

The Florida law that limits drag shows in the state will remain blocked, the Supreme Court said Thursday, dealing a blow to a key initiative championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Florida had asked the high court to narrow a lower court’s injunction that stopped the law from being enforced statewide. The justices declined to do so.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.

44 comments

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have allowed the law to take effect.
Of course they did.
- By a concerningly narrow margin.
  
  They will rewrite it and address the few procedural things the court went after.
Just to be clear, this law wasn't passed with any expectation of it ever being implemented. Everyone, including the Florida legislature, knew it was unconstitutional and would be overturned. The people it was passed for will never even know it was overturned though. It was passed for DeSantis who wanted red meat for his base. You should be happy that DeSantis is a terrible politican because he is a terrible person and belongs nowhere near the Presidency.
- Shit politician and terrible person. But he’s pretty good at rocking some killer high heels, which I’m interpreting as his way to show LGBT and drag community support.
  https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/31/desantis-boots-shoemakers-00121044
- What a waste of taxpayer dollars by so-called "conservatives".
  
  Conservative governments enacting laws that they know will fail court challenges, but that pander to their SoCon base has been happening increasingly over the last couple of decades.
  And not only in the US.
  
  It's not a waste to them. They got what they wanted.
When even Amy Coney Barrett thinks you're too much of a fascist...
- She's a religious nut, but she seems to be a relatively intelligent religious nut with enough of an understanding of the constitution to know this shit doesn't pass muster.
  Doesn't mean she won't uphold future bullshit laws that are less vague.
  We live in the dumbest time-line.
  
  When a judge is willing to substitute their own opinions for the law, it doesn't matter how well they understand the law.
  
  America can go dumber.
This is as clear of a free speech issue as there is. Anyone bringing these cases should be laughed out of any court.
- It's really not. The majority specifically addressed this, too. The largest fault in the law was its unenforceable vagueness. While the Court did say there are First Amendment issues, the law itself and the instant case were not well-poised for direct analysis as 1A issues.
Glad the law cannot limit drag shows.
What scares me is there's no repercussions for ignoring the court anymore.
- That's the secret. There never were any repercussions. All of civilization runs on the trust that people respect others.
  
  I like to say that "justice" is a fairy tail people tell their children to help them sleep at night.
- There wasn't when the SCOTUS told Andrew Jackson to respect treaties signed with indigenous populations, and the Trail of Tears and tens of thousands of dead people were the result. In fact they impeached him over this and he bribed a senator to change their vote which put them one vote below the number required to convict. The sort of corruption you mention has been around since the country was founded.
  
  Andrew Jackson was not impeached.
  Johnson was impeached for firing a member of his cabinet without senatorial approval.
Extreme Court is loosening up because most of the country has had just about enough of their shit.
I looked up the text of the bill and I'm confused why it's controversial. Is it due to it being vague? It seems to explicitly forbid from allowing kids at sexually explicit adult shows.
- The key is that it doesn't actually define what "sexually explicit adult shows" are.
  But the rhetoric was saying anything and everything counted as "sexually explicit" even when the performers were in full, high necked ball gowns that they had to be sewn into. i.e. any drag show at all.
  Also, the rhetoric was about stopping the shows, regardless of the age of the audience.
- It's vague, as they neglected to define "lewd" or "child." They also did not refute the argument that it violates the first amendment.
- Huh. I looked it up and was ready to go all gotcha, but I don't see any express references to drag. It does refer to chapter 847 which defines obscene acts. In those definitions are, "Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest;"
  So I'm thinking they avoided outright saying it, but that definition allows courts to interpret drag as a morbid interest.
  
  If the government decides it's shameful, you're going to jail. And you can bet that regressives like DeSantis already consider it shameful.
  
  I think you meant "prurient". A morbid interest would relate to death or disease.
- Drag story time at a library isn't sexually explicit.
  Just because YOU become aroused at the sight of a man in a comically colored wig, makeup and frock doesn't mean that the rest of the world sees it that way.
  
  That’s what I’m talking about. Where in the bill does it ban that?
- Hey, chin up! The same part of the constitution that invalidates this dumb law is the same part of the constitution that makes it possible for you to espouse your bigoted views. Those drag queens are also fighting for YOUR rights to be a loud, proud, backwards thinking asshole.
  Also, you're a backwards thinking bigot.
  Freezepeach!
  
  Yeah yeah yeah. Far left bullshit, that's all this is.

44 comments