12-12-2021, 06:21 PM
(12-12-2021, 05:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well reasoned. It raises an interesting secondary consideration though. If Newsome has stated publicly that the Texas law is unconstitutional, which I have to imagine he has, then enacting the same type of law for a protection clearly stated in the Bill of Rights would be a direct violation of his oath of office by his own admission. Would that not open the state, and possibly himself, to massive civil lawsuits from anyone affected? In Texas than could at least feign ignorance, as the issue has not been ruled on. But if the governor flat out stated that what is happening is unconstitutional and then does the exact same thing in his own state he has no such ability.
Someone can state that they believe something to be unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS is the arbiter of that. If SCOTUS says the Texas law passes muster, then Newsome's personal position doesn't really matter in that regard. All of that being said, the court explicitly did not rule on the constitutionality of the law. They punted on that issue.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
