I am still trying to digest this one. I am not sure how to weaponize a Constitutional amendment. Does Ms. Mason Pieklo ( a law professor by the way) mean that strengthening the individual’s choice to support a political who or a political view or movement is somehow evil? Kind of like the Soviets did and other like Saddam Hussein did: You can vote, but you only have one way to support and vote.
Remember what we have been saying all these decades: If they have no respect for the Second Amendment, you can rest assured they have the same lack of consideration for the rest of the Bill of Rights.
UPDATE: I just found out that the “weaponizes the First Amendment” was used by Justice Kagan in her dissent .
My conclusion still applies.
“I am not sure how to weaponize a Constitutional amendment. ”
See Number 16…
I’d like to point out that government didn’t/doesn’t weaponize agencies…agencies ARE the government; Government agencies weaponize ‘The Law’…
And Number 18 (at least, until #21).
Just think of all the federal agencies — particularly “law enforcement” agencies — that would never have existed without Prohibition. Then think of how many still exist today, with slightly adjusted missions (that usually if not always overlap significantly with other agencies’).
Kagan: …it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance.
She doesn’t know much about representative government or public-sector unions’ interference in the same, does she?
The whole point of the public sector union (i.e. a private organization) is to muscle the representatives around — ostensibly for the protection of public employees’ jobs and fair wages — but those unions wield an enormous amount of political clout, and the primary beneficiary of all those “fair share” dues paid to the union was NOT union members, but union employees.
Bottom line: When you have a private organization leveraging more power over elected representatives than their constituents, that’s … we’ll say, “counter-productive” … to “the American people, acting through their state and local officials”.
And what part of “public-sector unions requiring non-members to pay dues is unconstitutional” has anything to do with “ushering in a Christian autocracy”?
To quote Joe, these people have crap for brains.
I wonder if she even knows Christians wouldn’t stand for even a nominally Christian government, because of the bad history of mixing the two…
I am so tired of these over-credentialed ignoramouses.
(And note: another blue check.)
“Weaponizes the First Amendment” means “threatens the left’s union-funded advantage in buying advertising”. Their complaint is that other voices are going to be heard.