• Voroxpete
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    7 hours ago

    So, this is blatantly and egregiously unconstitutional, right?

      • Voroxpete
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I mean, they haven’t said that yet. While the current supreme court have made some genuinely insane rulings, they’ve generally at least made the pretence of trying to square everything they’re doing with the constitution, albeit often in very strained or roundabout ways. I’m not sure if they’ll be able to find a way to justify this (but I’m not ruling it out either).

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Yeah my only hope with some of this shit is that Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett actually have convictions and principles that they stand by (as horrible as those may be) and aren’t willing to completely destroy the Republic in exchange for expensive vacations with a billionaire.

          Not holding my breath though.

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Creating an anti-religious-hate office is not, as long as it protects all religions equally. I don’t think that’s what this will do.

      • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Sure, but to target “anti-christian bias” looks like being oddly specific about the religion you want to protect.

      • Voroxpete
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Yeah, but they’re explicitly saying it’s only to protect Christianity, so that throws that defense right out the window.