- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
You must log in or register to comment.
The question presented is narrow: Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes,” U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed by former President Trump, wrote in the unanimous opinion.
The one miscalculation that the Federalist Society made is that becoming a lifelong-appointed judge makes you able to follow your own conscience. The shadowy cabal of people who want to destroy the world for their own short term profits have no actual control once the appointment is made.
Only the weakest and least-deserving actually hand their bench over to the shady, evil group that got them there.
The majority of his judicial appointments almost certainly were not picked by Trump himself, rather handed to him by the GOP. While they’re too chickenshit to publically call him out, the majority of the judges he appointed likely want little to do with his vision of dictatorship.
Whether that’s because of their conscious or because they’re smart enough to know they’re unlikely to make it out unscathed themselves, that’s for you to decide.
Ultimately though, in the real world the whole being chickenshit part nullifies all of that, and each and every one not actively calling it out publically is complicit. Whether they want to admit it to themselves or not.
Maybe the TX legislature is more about grandstanding, and less about governing. Folks might think about that when it’s time to fill out that ballot.
Except Texas Republicans would rather elect ineffectual politicians than ever vote outside of their party.
Turns out there are more citizens in TX than solely GOPers. Remember when those maps came out showing states and even counties as red or blue? Turns out the whole country is just varying shades of lavender. And the largest group is neither Dem nor GOP, it’s independent.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The three-judge appeals panel issued a unanimous ruling that the plaintiffs — two Texas bookstores; three national trade associations representing booksellers, publishers and authors; and a legal defense fund — would likely succeed on their claims that Texas’s law violates their First Amendment right to free speech.
The Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act (READER) requires vendors who want to do business with Texas public schools to give sexual-content ratings for all library material and flag any “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” material.
“The question presented is narrow: Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights?
Circuit Judge Don Willett, appointed by former President Trump, wrote in the unanimous opinion.
We vacate the preliminary injunction against Chairs Wong and Ellis and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit against them.
Texas has said the law aims to protect children and has pushed back on claims of free speech by the booksellers.
The original article contains 402 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good. Fuck Ted Cruz that nasty cannibal.
