[IronJack]

The Constitution -- if upheld -- is pretty clear. And with the precedents that, ironically, were set by liberals who vastly expanded the scope of "free speech," there is no way a court can rule consistent with precedent that words that make the snowflakes uncomfortable or afraid are not protected.

This is a delicious example of the Left now reaping what it has sown.

[i_robot73]

>The Constitution — if upheld — is pretty clear.

Yes...IF.

>...there is no way a court can rule consistent with precedent that words that make the snowflakes uncomfortable or afraid are not protected.

You seem to forget ‘Wickard v. Filburn’, O’Care, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. and a plethora of other ‘pretty clear vis a vie Constitution’ rulings. On the flip you had those like A. Jackson and, to some extent Zero....”made the ruling, let them enforce it” mantra.

IOW, we are a L-O-N-G way away from where we started, and I wouldn’t trust govt, let alone a lawyer/judge, as far as I could throw Mt. Rushmore.