Readit NewsThe full title is:
> May 1, 1969: Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications
hn_acker commented on Texas has banned talking on college campuses at night. Seriously houstonchronicle.com/opin... · Posted by u/hn_acker
The people affected are not all brown people, so even if I held that low a view of the Supreme Court, no I would not bet on that.
Sitting on it until 2030? Well... it won't be the Supreme Court sitting on it until 2030. It will be:
- You can't go to court (usually) on a hypothetical. You usually need someone who has been actually affected. That can't happen until the law actually takes effect (September).
- Then you need a court case, in federal court (probably, since it's a first amendment argument). That has to reach completion, which can take a year or three.
- Then you need an appeal to the district court, and for that appeal to be accepted, and for that court case to run to completion. I have less of a feel for how long that takes, but I would guess at least half a year, maybe longer.
- Then you need an appeal to the Supreme Court, and for it to be accepted, and for the Supreme Court to hear the case and decide. That can take a year.
So, yeah, you're not going to see a final resolution until 2030 or so. That's not because the Supreme Court is sitting on it, though - at least, not most of it.
> You can't go to court (usually) on a hypothetical. You usually need someone who has been actually affected. That can't happen until the law actually takes effect (September).
I think a Texas college or a student of one could bring a facial challenge to this law before it goes into effect. The following two excerpts of S.B. 2972 [1] (the second one consisting of spliced fragments) should be enough to demonstrate that the law would inevitably, not hypothetically, restrict a student's freedom of speech:
> "Expressive activities" means any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution
`Each institution of higher education shall adopt a policy detailing... rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities at the institution. The policy must... prohibit... engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.`
hn_acker commented on Texas has banned talking on college campuses at night. Seriously houstonchronicle.com/opin... · Posted by u/hn_acker
Because Palestinian protests only happen at night? If that's what they're after, this seems unlikely to be effective.
Classes and homework take up a massive chunk of daytime hours, and nighttime hours for some students. Swap protest and homework hours? Be unable to work with other students on homework at night. Additionally, on the day of a protest, if I were a leader of any large gathering of people I would prefer to start talking to the other planners before 8 AM.
> The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity
Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
And the histrionics around this are uniquely relative to modern norms. Look up the shenanigans around Marbury v Madison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Backgroun...
Joisting for power between federal branches (and with states, historically) has been a constant in American democracy more often (most of its history) than not (1970s+).
> Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally
Yes, such is the danger of personality cults in democracies.
> The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential.
Gerrymandering has always been a finger on the scales of elections, and will continue to be, until such time as Congress puts a stop to it (though debatable they have the power). https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/
> the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
I imagine FDR's ghost is spinning in his grave, with things to say about Hoover.
How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/11/even-the-supreme-court-s...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-immigra...