This is unethical. I wonder how the state got that way, and if anything can be done about it?
ITEM: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out to the state that its obviously First Amendment-violating ban on firearms advertising was illegal, and now California must pay more than $1.3 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs. The law was virtue-signalling to California’s gun-phobics; I doubt any honest Constitutional law expert anywhere thought it could pass judicial scrutiny.
Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571) prohibited “firearms industry members” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from advertising, marketing or promoting any firearms or “firearms-related products,” in a manner that is “designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” Wow, how about that statutory drafting?
Safari Club International and the other plaintiffs filed suit arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague (Ya think?), a Due Process violation, and that it discriminated against a legal industry and makers of legal products. The rulings agreeing with them are here and here.
ITEM: Voters in California, according to a poll conducted by the Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research, support a proposed “wealth tax” on billionaires with 50% of California voters in favor of the measure and only 28% objecting to it. The concept comes from the Marxist brain of Bernie Sanders, who insists that people who resent other American having more money than they do should be able to just take it.
This scheme probably violates state and federal laws as well as the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments block uncompensated “takings.” California’s 0.4% cap on personal property tax would seem to be a problem. The law also looks like an illegal bill of attainder, targeting specific individuals.
The California Communists who are pushing this bill seem to believe that the state’s billionaires will just be good little proles and hand the cash over. Gavin Newsom, who has no discernible principles, thinks the proposed law will make him look bad when he runs for President, so he says he’s against it.
Maybe all the billionaires, millionaires, entrepreneurs, companies and American citizens will abandon the Golden State to the illegal immigrants, shop-lifters, assorted criminals and censors, leaving California to emulate the dystopian Manhattan of John Carpenter’s “Escape from New York.” Surely there must be a less draconian remedy, but I have no idea what it is.
Ethics Alarms 
This seems to me to be a continuation of the general lawfare in which the Left is engaged. Just like when Biden pushed for pandemic policies that he knew would be judged unconstitutional, the point was to do as much damage before the constitutionality could be adjudicated. It seems to me that the Left is intent on bogging the down the entire judiciary with as many lawsuits as possible: challenge everything that Trump does, pass bills that are blatantly unconstitutional but force plaintiffs to fight through the process of taking the issue to the Supreme Court, flood the country with more illegal immigrants than the courts could feasibly handle in a lifetime, force conservatives to spend time and money that many simply don’t have to challenge curtailments of free speech, freedom of religion, and so on. At some point, something will slip through (or at least for long enough) because the system is so burdened and their adversaries so depleted in resources.
Generally speaking, when people break the law they are punished. Would it help if the Supreme Court could issue punishments for passing laws that violate the Constitution, i.e. the law about what laws can be passed? Anyone who voted in favor of an unconstitutional law could be held liable. Is that reasonable, or am I overlooking something?
“Guy Fawkes Night” resurrected!!!
To clarify, the idea is that the Supreme Court would only impose a punishment if a majority/supermajority/unanimity/whatever agreed that the lawmakers should have known better in the first place.
I do not think the Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the power to issue punishments for passing laws. The practice of constitutional review by the courts of laws and executive orders is already controversial as it is considered a power grab; the Constitution does not grant the courts such a right.
NY governor Hochul is seeing first hand the Escape from NewYork. She was lamenting the fact that so many wealthy people were leaving the state and destroying the tax base. She said people needed to talk to their friends and get them to come back when they go to Palm Beach. She had no other solutions on how to make ends meet
She is saying the payers are destroying the tax base not the tax and spend policies of the legislature and her administration.
Next, she’ll hire an advertising firm to run the “Friends don’t let their friends move to Palm Beach” ad campaign.
Having grown up in Miami and gone to college in upstate New York, I would suggest people are moving to and staying in Florida for more than just the no state income tax and lower property taxes.
I think she has also begged them to just send money if they won’t return.
Oddly, she also coughed up this “No shit, Sherlock!” comment:
“I have to look at the fact that we are in competition with other states who have less of a tax burden on their corporations and their individuals.”