“More attempts to chill free speech in the ‘free’ State of Florida,” said one Democratic lawmaker.

  • Mjpasta710@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’d like to see how that works out. I feel like it potentially creates a lockdown on new laws favoring the bias of the judges. A whole new set of individuals who can block progress or laws they disagree with.

    Currently bills or amendments can go into committee for refinement, discussion, etc.

    In the proposed system - Amendments that refine the existing law overwriting previous laws in their effect and verbiage, couldn’t pass.

    In other words, by definition wouldn’t this court reject amendments, preserving the status quo?

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Hey! Fiscally Responsible Republicans ONLY care about Taxpayer Waste when it’s being used to feed Starving Children! If you want to see these people voted out they should propose feeding Hungry Kids instead!

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, laws that conflict with other laws but not the constitution aren’t unconstitutional, and constitutional amendments are passed via a different process than regular laws generally, so I don’t see how it would make amendments any more impossible than now. Similarly, judges already can block laws, so I don’t see how this changes that really, unless some law in our current system is unconstitutional but never challenged. I do see how it might slow things down a little bit, because it adds an extra step for laws to go through before taking effect, and increases the number of court cases though