Los Angeles is demanding contractors disclose ties to NRA. Denying contracts because a contractor is exercising their First Amendment rights? I’d sue them senseless over that bullshit if they denied me a contract. In fact, isn’t the threat enough? I’m hoping the NRA ends up owning Governor Cuomo. I wouldn’t mind seeing a nice fat payout from Los Angeles either.
We can’t keep taking this shit. We need to strike back at these people and make it painful for them.
Out of curiosity, how is this situation legally different from mandating that no contractor may participate in a boycott of Israel (BDS movement)? There are laws in the books on the later. I’m sure this would be the first argument brought up from a leftie if I complained online about mandated disclosure of NRA ties for contractors.
Back story:
https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-texas-files-first-amendment-challenge-anti-boycott-law
They are right to complain. Both are unconstitutional.
yep. both pretty cut and dry “chilling of speech” issues
I read somewhere (Volokh Conspiracy IIRC) that it boils down to how you define participation. Apparently the federal government has rules mandating contractors not discriminate in who they do business with, and these have been held as constitutional. So anti BDS laws are constitutional as long as they’re worded carefully so that the only banned activities are refusing to do business with Israeli companies or the Israeli government, not penalizing companies for merely making supportive political statements or donations. A good argument could be made that this a bad constitutional decision, but that’s what I understand.
Volokh Conspiracy link here:
Everything you wanted to Know about Anti-BDS Laws:
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/18/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-anti
That’s what it felt like to me too, I just wasn’t sure if I was missing something.
The article says there’s existing case law on our side, too. Step it up, NRA and SAF
I agree we should fight back. However, until the politicians are held personally accountable, it won’t make a difference.
It’s always easy to spend tax money to fight lawsuits. When you’re using other people’s money and not your own and there is no threat of YOU going to prison….
In Cuomo’s case, he is being sued personally. So we are going after them. We could in this case too. Violation of clearly established precedent overcomes qualified immunity.
Suing people personally doesn’t always work. The employer can indemnify the defendant. In this case, I am about 100% sure that would happen. Criminal charges are a lot better.
I would love for John Roberts to tell me off over his minimalist whoreshit, because we all know how a supposed lawsuit like this would play out.
The En Banc 9th Communist Court of Maoism will allow LA to do what they’re doing. It will then be appealed to SCOTUS, and we will be greeted by Minimalist Roberts who will be shaking like a coward, knowing that what LA is doing is wrong…….but his willingness to appease the Left means that striking this stuff down is up in the air.
Roberts is in a bit of a bind. There are 4 conservative-and-activist judges (more so than Kennedy, at least) on the Court now.
He is going to find it harder to duck cert. And once something is before the court, he has to rule. He can rule narrowly, but he does seem to be relatively pro-freedom himself in judicial temperament.
*pro-freedom once out of the womb.
FTFY
The threat alone has a very obvious chilling effect on free speech.
I agree with other commenters though, they will keep doing this crap so long as they aren’t personally hurt by it. These are supremely arrogant people, so if they have to defend lawsuits with other people’s money, what do they care? Same with anti-gun dems ignoring pre-emption or flat out saying they will. They don’t give a crap about rule of law or people’s constitutional rights because it’s no skin off their backs either way.