Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a Jewish lawmaker who has co-sponsored other bills aimed at combating antisemitism and described himself Wednesday as a “deeply committed Zionist,” urged colleagues to reject Lawler’s bill, which he characterized as “misguided” because it “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech.”
The IHRA definition is quite comprehensive. Complaining that Bibi's economic policies have created a huge gap between the haves and have-notes of society while leading to an unaffordable real estate market is not anti-Semitic. Claiming Israel is stealing the organs of Arab prisoners is. What's so hard about that?
ReplyDeleteBecause that is not the issue
Deletethe question is simply whether the definition is constitutional
DeleteOf course its constitutional. It was written with the First Amendment in mind because they knew it would get challenged.
DeleteThe constitutionality will likely depend on the value to society. If you ever listen to the oral arguments before the SCOTUS, you get the feeling that the main deciding factors of the Justices is the long term effect on public policy, not the "Etzem constitutionality Shebo." Essentially, it can go either way.
ReplyDelete