Okay, a thread. (thanks to
@mjsdc.bsky.social for posting on this case). The Court is lying through its teeth (precedent) - subtly changing its quote extractions to rewrite animus law and produce essential a new pro-animus "equal protection" doctrine. Here's how...1/
The requirement that challengers must show that a gov’t action “lacks any purpose other than a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” basically would mean all animus discrimination is constitutional. There is always some other “purpose.” This standard would overrule Romer and Cleburne.
