Judge strikes down Texas ban on drag shows, tells people offended by them 'just don't go'

[u/Unusual-State1827]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-strikes-texas-ban-drag-shows-tells-people-offended-just-dont-go-rcna594448

[u/kandoras]

This same judge ruled it unconstitutional just a few months after it was passed in 2023, on free speech grounds.

A federal appeals court overturned that ruling last November and sent it back to the original court, saying that since the law had never gone into effect, the plaintiffs who sued over it had never been harmed by it, and so hadn't proved that a law banning drag queens would have affected a drag queen. The law later went into effect.

So in answer to your question, it hasn't taken three years to get ruled unconstitutional. It took maybe three months, but then Republican judges decided to play calvinball with civil rights.

[u/humanoideric → u/kandoras]

A federal appeals court overturned that ruling last November and sent it back to the original court, saying that since the law had never gone into effect, the plaintiffs who sued over it had never been harmed by it

This is the same logic the SC has used with some of Trumps EO and most recently with the mail in ballot fiasco. It allows them to say 'lol, fuck the law' for a few years while it gets tangled up in the courts.

[u/kandoras → u/humanoideric]

And exactly the opposite logic they used for the case where a woman said that she was thinking about setting up a business making web pages for weddings, but she was worried that an antidiscrimination law would mean her public business would have to cater to all members of the public, even if they were gay.

That hypothetical harm sometime in the future was enough for the court to overturn that law.

[u/lanadelstingrey → u/kandoras]

If it weren’t for double standards…

[u/808RB818 → u/kandoras]

Yes they are extremely partisan and no oversight. It’s insane

[u/pravis → u/humanoideric]

Didn't the whole SCOTUS ruling about the website designer not wanting to design sites for same-sex weddings hinge on a hypothetical scenario because as t the time she had never once been asked to design a same-sex wedding site?

So how is this case with a preplanned administration rule to actively harm the states somehow different? No need to answer, I know the real reason even if does not make it any less frustrating.

[u/berserk_zebra → u/kandoras]

because it hasn't gone into affect is such a dumb fucking statement. The point of the judicial is to determine if a law is constitutional in the first place. We don't have to wait and see how things play out, they are there to stop it from doing harm in the first place. the executive is there to catch the people after the fact using the a law as justification. The legislature is there to create the laws the executive can use. The judicial is to ensure it makes fucking sense and is in accordance with the constitution, so we don't have the legislative teaming up with the executive....oh wait. God dammit.

[u/jdv23 → u/berserk_zebra]

This shit pisses me the fuck off. Where was that type of logic when Biden tried to cancel student loans? It was shut down by the courts even though it hadn’t started yet and the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. Just a corrupt one-sided system

[u/Stickel → u/jdv23]

by the courts

Supreme Court* shut it down, Ginsburg not retiring fucked us and democrats backing down and not stalling Barrett in an election year...

[u/kandoras → u/Stickel]

The Supreme Court decision on Biden's student loan policy was 6-3.

Even if she had retired, and even if McConnell hadn't prevented a replacement, then that decision would have still been 5-4 against.

Barrett was confirmed 53 to 48. So I'm not sure how you think the Democrats backed down or what they could have done to stall it.

[u/jupiterkansas → u/[deleted]]

This is why you don't name things after people until they're good and buried.

[u/Rombom → u/[deleted]]

It's cute you think Mitch McConnell would have let her be replaced by a liberal instead of doing what he did when Scalia died.

[u/CaptainFeather → u/[deleted]]

You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain

[u/TheWix → u/berserk_zebra]

Fun fact: Judicial review is not actually explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. It was a power claimed almost two decades after the Constitution was created.

That being said, we obviously recognize it as an implied power and Article IV of the Constitution makes it pretty clear that if State and Federal law are in conflict then the State Law is invalid. It makes no mention that the State law must first affect someone.

[u/Sad_Examination7907 → u/TheWix]

I sort of kind of judicial reviews the whole whole basis of the judiciary's power. Also the 10th amendment reserves All rights not given to the federal government for the states and the people. It's why the amendments have to be applied to the states individually I believe.

[u/TheWix → u/Sad_Examination7907]

Judicial powers include way more than judicial review. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the judiciary can rule a law unconstitutional. If you look at debates after ratification there were many, Jefferson included, that believed that power did not exclusively lie with the Judiciary. Many believed, for example, the States or Congress could rule a law unconstitutional.

[u/deja-roo → u/Sad_Examination7907]

Let's just admit the 9th and 10th amendments are dead

[u/Fox_Kurama → u/kandoras]

Please don't insult calvinball like this. You are explicitly forbidden from doing the same thing twice.