SCOTUS Blocks Florida's anti drag law

[Belsnickel]

(11-25-2023, 03:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How so?  I'm sure you have specific examples, but what always pops into my mind when interest balancing comes up is the people who say things like, "If it saves just one life, then it would be worth it" and similar pablum.

I mean, that's an extreme example, but you could also take it in the other extreme where something that could prevent the loss of thousands of lives would not meet the test. A wholesale dismissal of the means-end test causes some issues.

For example, someone directly incites a murderous mob that kills hundreds but does not take any physical action themselves. If you get rid of the means-end test then any criminal charges filed against them could be challenged on their constitutionality. Now, the historical analog could be applied but how broadly that gets applied could be different in each scenario. Any law that restricts another's individual liberties based on public safety could be thrown into question. Then we need to look at the historical precedent, which raises the question of when in history? The constitutional understanding of free speech, for instance, has been constantly evolving and honestly our ability to openly criticize the government is less than a century old. So that could be something challenged.

Let's look in another direction and think about the Fourth Amendment. What becomes unreasonable, now? Public safety can no longer be considered if we jettison the means-end test and now we could end up with police having their hands tied even more. Police weren't even a thing at the time of the Framers, and barely a thing if at all at the time of the 14th, so what historical precedence do we use?