this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
30 points (94.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27161 readers
1862 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Title is my question. It seems like refusing to recognize other state's driver licenses would be blatantly unconstitutional. Is there something I'm missing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lhx 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Lawyer here; it's almost certainly unconstitutional but it's a political tactic used to garner votes from ultra-conservatives. It doesn't have to win in court, it just has to make a splashy headline now, which his base will see, and then the base won't see the court losses months later.

[–] TechyDad 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So basically like all of DeSantis' other initiatives. A flashy headline that shows the right that DeSantis is fighting against what they don't like followed by a loss in court repealing the changes. After the court loss, DeSantis would either ignore the loss and still crow about what he did or rail against "liberal activist judges" (no matter who appointed the judges) and declare that he'd get rid of all the liberal judges if he had enough power.

[–] radix 5 points 1 year ago

If they win in court, it's a legal victory, but if (when) they lose in court, it's an even bigger cultural victory.

[–] zebs 4 points 1 year ago

the base won't see the court losses months later

Or they will, and take it as further evidence of the establishment/dems/pedo cheesecake ring/Santos working against them.

[–] NABDad 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the reply. I figured so, but I was confused that none of the articles I've seen point that out.

Modern AI journalism, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As an attorney, how sure are you on this, when I read the list all of them had some sort of comment as part of the indentification that they are not intended to be used as identification. Now I don't like desantis any more than any other sane person but feels like the states who issued the ids sorta opened it up to this.

[–] lhx 1 points 1 year ago

It’s really hard to predict the outcome of lawsuits interpreting the constitution; especially considering the current SCOTUS judges.