4 ms·

How would a teacher who stocks books in their classroom be held liable for this? Wouldn’t any such case end up in the Supreme Court?

standardUser 4y ago
Teachers are in the crosshairs now in a lot of communities and any action taken against them under state law could takes years to get heard in higher courts. If I were a teacher, I wouldn't be betting on the restraint of state regulators under DeSantis or any exceptional speed and efficiency from the court system.
akudha 4y ago
Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. But how many cases can SC take on? How long will these cases take? Primary objective of these laws is to scare people and theatrics. By that metric, this law seems to be doing well. That said, are we even sure the current SC will act in the best interests of the ordinary citizen?
- krapp 4y ago
  The reason red states are passing laws like this is that they believe the Supreme Court, recently stacked by Conservatives hand-picked by the Federalist Society, will either leave it to the states or rule in their favor.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    And given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour. If the SC can’t protect a freedom as fundamental as person’s bodily autonomy and integrity, they will do nothing here.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      While I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.
      - krapp 4y ago
        Whether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.
        xupybd 4y ago
        They over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.
      - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
        While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...
        nathanaldensr 4y ago
        Again, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.
- ErikVandeWater 4y ago
  > Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. This is definitely not specific to red states.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Exactly. See New York's and Chicago's blatantly unconstitutional gun laws--passed after recent USSC rulings.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- kodah 4y ago
  Hell, even in blue states. I live in Oregon and we're fighting a gun law that was clearly laughing at the hurdles one must go through in order to undo a law.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Affording the consequences until the Supreme Court rights the wrongs, if they do, is not trivial.
TheRealPomax 4y ago
No, such cases would have to go through eleven circuits before ending up at the supreme court, and a school would literally have to make the choice between "running the school" and "going bankrupt" from paying for the legal fees to defend themselves in eleven courts. Even with help from the EFF and related law non-profits, there is no choice to make. Because this is the US.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > No, such cases would have to go through eleven circuits before ending up at the supreme court The case needs to reach just one circuit, the appropriate circuit that is the appellate court of whatever federal district the case is on (in this case, 11th). Sometimes, you need a circuit split (where two circuits come to opposite conclusions of the law), but that's usually not necessary where a constitutional question is at play. Also, there are 13 circuits. There are 11 numbered circuits, plus the DC circuit, plus the Federal Circuit.
bandyaboot 4y ago
It’s not so much being ultimately found guilty that I would be afraid of. It’s coming under the spotlight of the cultural right and becoming a character in their fever dreams. At that point it’s only a matter of time before they label you a pedophile.
the_only_law 4y ago
> How would a teacher who stocks books in their classroom be held liable for this Shit, you gotta have a concrete enemy. They’re just unlucky enough to be an easy target.

standardUser 4y ago

Teachers are in the crosshairs now in a lot of communities and any action taken against them under state law could takes years to get heard in higher courts. If I were a teacher, I wouldn't be betting on the restraint of state regulators under DeSantis or any exceptional speed and efficiency from the court system.

akudha 4y ago

Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. But how many cases can SC take on? How long will these cases take? Primary objective of these laws is to scare people and theatrics. By that metric, this law seems to be doing well. That said, are we even sure the current SC will act in the best interests of the ordinary citizen?

krapp 4y ago
The reason red states are passing laws like this is that they believe the Supreme Court, recently stacked by Conservatives hand-picked by the Federalist Society, will either leave it to the states or rule in their favor.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  And given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour. If the SC can’t protect a freedom as fundamental as person’s bodily autonomy and integrity, they will do nothing here.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    While I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Whether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        They over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.
    - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
      While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...
      - nathanaldensr 4y ago
        Again, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
> Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. This is definitely not specific to red states.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Exactly. See New York's and Chicago's blatantly unconstitutional gun laws--passed after recent USSC rulings.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
kodah 4y ago
Hell, even in blue states. I live in Oregon and we're fighting a gun law that was clearly laughing at the hurdles one must go through in order to undo a law.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Affording the consequences until the Supreme Court rights the wrongs, if they do, is not trivial.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

No, such cases would have to go through eleven circuits before ending up at the supreme court, and a school would literally have to make the choice between "running the school" and "going bankrupt" from paying for the legal fees to defend themselves in eleven courts. Even with help from the EFF and related law non-profits, there is no choice to make. Because this is the US.

jcranmer 4y ago
> No, such cases would have to go through eleven circuits before ending up at the supreme court The case needs to reach just one circuit, the appropriate circuit that is the appellate court of whatever federal district the case is on (in this case, 11th). Sometimes, you need a circuit split (where two circuits come to opposite conclusions of the law), but that's usually not necessary where a constitutional question is at play. Also, there are 13 circuits. There are 11 numbered circuits, plus the DC circuit, plus the Federal Circuit.

bandyaboot 4y ago

It’s not so much being ultimately found guilty that I would be afraid of. It’s coming under the spotlight of the cultural right and becoming a character in their fever dreams. At that point it’s only a matter of time before they label you a pedophile.

the_only_law 4y ago

> How would a teacher who stocks books in their classroom be held liable for this Shit, you gotta have a concrete enemy. They’re just unlucky enough to be an easy target.