The constitution defines what's constitutional. The supreme court's job is to apply the constitution. Not to redefine it. Their job is to be a law application

The constitution defines what's constitutional. The supreme court's job is to apply the constitution. Not to redefine it. Their job is to be a law application machine. We don't want them "redefining" things. That's the job of our elected representatives. Not a single person voted on these supreme court judges. Their jobs are to do what's written on the paper, no more and no less. The constitution plainly states in very simple terms that anyone can understand: > Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited > The expression of thought is free It's very simple. People have argued some impressive mental gymnastics to relativize those very simple lines of text but I'm just not convinced. The accounts in question were engaged in political discourse. A judge ordering the erasure of such discourse absolutely does fall in the deliberately broad category of "any and all censorship of political and ideological nature". There is simply no way this is justified.