@NPR
I think you mean, "It's the second time the #SCOTUS avoids addressing First Amendment rights under attack by vague #Republican anti-LGBTQ+ laws "
So, attacks on charity drag shows, sorry can't be bothered. But, overturning decades of established reproductive or regulatory rights, yes, let's jump on that!
#SCOTUSIsCorrupt
@TCatInReality Well right, because that's how the US judicial system is set up.
It's not the legislative branch. The place to handle that sort of concern is in the other branch of government.
This is the judicial branch where the system is set up to take time, let lower courts debate and explore issues before overtime raising them to the upper court.
It is absolutely reasonable, given the design of the US system, that the Supreme Court would be much more interested in taking on established rights, as that sits roll in the government.
@TCatInReality that's just not accurate, and here's a link to the plaintiff's plea so you can read for yourself.
Not only did the lower courts agree to hear the case, but they were *still in the process of hearing* the case.
So the Supreme Court merely said they'd let the normal process work through, as is normal and constitutional.
That there wasn't a single dissent registered against the SCOTUS decision is a good indication that many of the sensational stories about this are false.
@volkris
I stand corrected on the lower courts taking the case, but refusing a stay. And I accept your point on the #SCOTUS letting this work its way through lower courts.
But my point still stands about the #SCOTUS refusing to defend 1st Amendment rights, in this case by allowing prior restraint. The ask was a writ of injunction, to allow the drag show while the courts decide.
They chose to allow suppression to stand.
@TCatInReality that's not how the appeals process works, though.
The Court isn't refusing to defend the 1st Amendment since the lower court hasn't yet completed work to see if there's a 1st Amendment issue here in the first place.
The Supreme Court hasn't had a full briefing on this case, so it would be inappropriate for it at this moment to interfere in the lower court's work by making such a claim.
They didn't choose to allow suppression to stand. Instead, they chose to allow the constitutional process to address allegations of suppression.
Again, not a single justice filed a dissent saying that this was allowing suppression to stand.
This is how the legal process works in the US, and for good reasons.
@TCatInReality right, under certain circumstances a stay or injunction is legal and appropriate.
The problem is that they didn't find it to be that here.
So rather than exceed authority by issuing an inappropriate stay here, they stuck to their Constitutional role and let the process work though the normal procedure.
@volkris
There are stays and injunctions implemented all the time, at all levels, to avoid harm while the judicial process works.
It is entirely consistent to have issued an injunction while this worked its way through the courts. It's nothing out of the ordinary.