Readit News logoReadit News
perihelions · 3 months ago
The US did this before; there was a Cold War-era law SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptheker_v._Secretary_of_State ("Aptheker v. Secretary of State" (1964))

> In Aptheker, the petitioner challenged Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it a crime for any member of a Communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport.[1]"

Some expanded context,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit... ("Freedom of movement under United States law")

cibyr · 3 months ago
Good thing the current supreme court has such respect for precedent!
bigbadfeline · 3 months ago
It's like 50/50 kind of balanced rulings - when precedent agrees with their agenda, they go with it, when it doesn't they go with their own thing.

Just like my wife treats my wishes.

BlackjackCF · 3 months ago
They really care about stare decisis unless it doesn’t favor their agenda.
mdhb · 3 months ago
So this would mean that not only can you not enter the country if you make fun of Charlie Kirk but you now wouldn’t be able to leave as well?

It’s very obvious at this point that they are absolutely sure that they aren’t going to be “out of power” any time soon.

dzonga · 3 months ago
all signs are pointing to this - that these guys are not willing to be out of power soon.

from the white house redecorations, to the trump 2028 hats, to the gerrymandering going on in many states. capture of judiciary, suppression of free speech etc. the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.

libertine · 3 months ago
In the end the question is: will democratic institutions hold? I think we won't know the answer until they don't.

I think it would be unprecedented in the US, and over the years the red flags have been increasing, so the signs aren't good - but not there yet.

Dead Comment

frogperson · 3 months ago
They can not leave power or they will all br prosecuted. They are all very motivated to work together and remain in power. It cant last forever. Individually they are too selfish, short sighted, and incompetent to rule for long.

They might have dreams of a 100 year 4th reich, but its not going to happen.

b3ing · 3 months ago
You’d think they would want people that disagree to leave so they could have more votes in their favor
mdhb · 3 months ago
I don’t think it’s going to much matter who you vote for moving forward, the results will be the same either way.
mattnewton · 3 months ago
They are just reaching for punishments that they think will stick. Removing someone’s citizenship for speech is too far outside of the overton window right now. But perhaps they can persecute political opponents this way. It’s a game of inches over many years.
krapp · 3 months ago
They want people that disagree to stay so that an example can be made of them. The people who voted them the regime into office want to see those people suffer.
DangitBobby · 3 months ago
Who do you publicly flog or execute if all the bad guys leave of their own accord?

Dead Comment

cmxch · 3 months ago
Turnabout is fair play when places like Unicorn Riot et al have done the same from the opposite direction.
vict7 · 3 months ago
False equivalence. Remind me what political power Unicorn Riot actually possesses compared to the party currently controlling the federal government. Unicorn riot hasn’t “done” anything because they don’t run the government.

Statements or actions taken by some fringe group are in no way equivalent to statements and actions taken by the actual government—which is currently being run based on fringe right wing ideology.

saubeidl · 3 months ago
The Party of Free Speech, everyone.
spacechild1 · 3 months ago
Nice nickname :-D