I think this SCOTUS will doom itself when they eventually outlaw porn

[Orrex]

Given the opportunity, watch for them to overturn People v Freeman as part of their toxic pseudo-moralistic frenzy.


And on that day, gentle readers, watch for the entire Evangelical base of the GQP to abandon the party in favor of PornHub et al.

[unblock]

1. Lol. Kavanaugh dissents. Thomas dissents.

[Spazito]

2. They aren't going to outlaw porn...

not going to happen with at least two sexual assaulters on the court, not gonna happen.

[rownesheck]

15. Exactly.

Plus they know damn well that EVERY "good xtian man" is what keeps porn in business. I remember a survey which showed Utah's most searched porn category is "incest porn".

Most xtian men I've met seem creepy as fuck. You can see the facade they've built to try and hide their vomitous selves.

[Generic Other]

3. That is the day I will probably die laughing

What a devious mind you have Orrex!

[Nevilledog]

4. Wait til they find out sodomy laws mean no more blow jobs.

[jaysunb]

6. 😆 🤣 😂 nt

[Celerity]

14. And no more pegging

[JI7]

5. Thomas will never vote for that. I think some case involving porn was

one of the few cases he voted differently from Scalia .

[sarcasmo]

10. Long Dong Silver will never vote against porn.

[Thomas Hurt]

7. Birth control, Gay marriage, gay sex, porn, sex toys, welfare, lotteries, indian casinos all gone

[DemocraticPatriot]

8. Conservative realization of "unintended consequences"!

We all know they are horny bastards....

On that day they will be forced to 'use their imaginations', a department in which they are sadly lacking-- except for the Q faction...

[onenote]

9. What does People v Freeman have to do with anything?

It was a decision denying a stay of a California State Supreme Court decision that held the producer of an adult film was not guilty of "pandering" -- paying people to engage in prostitution -- under a specific California statute. The state supreme court decision was based on the court's narrow reading of the California statute, which it adopted to avoid any possible first amendment issue.

California filed a petition for certiorari and pending action on the petition asked Justice O'Connor to stay the reversal of the defendant's conviction. O'Connor didn't even refer the stay request to the full court -- acting individually she denied the stay because, in her view, the US Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition and therefore it wasn't likely that four justices would vote to grant the petition -- which turned out to be correct. Her reasoning about the court's jurisdiction didn't reach any Constitutional issues -- in fact, quite the opposite. It was based on her conclusion that the California Supreme Court had decided the case on state statutory grounds independent of any first amendment considerations and was binding on the US Supreme Court. To the extent that the California court discussed the first amendment, there was nothing for the US Supreme Court to review since that discussion was not necessary for the California court's decision.

In short, People v. Freeman is not a decision of the full Supreme Court on the merits of any Constitutional issue. It was a interlocutory decision not to stay a decision that the full Court refused to review. The Court didn't conclude that the first amendment did or did not negate state prostitution laws. And it did not address the settled decisions on what constitutes obscenity.

[Orrex]

11. You're right. I'm sure the court won't overturn anything that it didn't already hear decades ago

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2022, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

No doubt they'll confine their attentions solely to pressing matters of the day, and we needn't worry about judicial overreach or anything like that.

[newdayneeded]

13. I see what you did there...bravo!

[Zeitghost]

12. I don't see that happening

Even if the votes were there, I don't see a state passing the law needed for it to be challenged.