And of course, they'll just put out a new law some time after the first one is overturned. Maybe they'll spend time rewording it a bit, but I suspect they'll eventually stop bothering with such tedious ceremony.
In effect, their desired law will be the law for the vast supermajority of time regardless of constitutionality.
> Kavanagh’s bill makes a violation a petty offense, the lowest-level Arizona crime that can bring a fine but no jail time. Refusing to stop recording when an officer orders it would be a low-level misdemeanor subject to a 30-day jail sentence.
It can still do a lot of damage. Arrest and exposure to the criminal legal system carries heavy costs and risks for very many people. Those things aren't undone when, years later, it gets declared unconstitutional because someone else's case finally made it through the process.
Yes, but in the meantime, the cops are allowed to beat, detain and arrest you. While your case rises to a right-wing packed SCOTUS, you will most likely lose your job, have issues with any kind of clearance (resisting arrest can be a felony depending on circumstances), face difficulties during any custody battle and possibly be incarcerated. Then if the courts rule in your favor, you receive nothing except your world reduced to ashes. In the US justice system, the process is the punishment.
Neither directional wing gets to claim ownership of that goal. Grassroots "left" and grassroots "right" both desire limits on government power. The professional parties both give the goal some acknowledgement, and then turn around and herd people into their sponsors' top-down authoritarian policies. When you make statements like the above, all you're essentially doing is attacking the other tribe based on their entrenched politicians while giving your tribe a pass based on its grassroots. In actuality, if you want reform you need to do the exact opposite and focus on criticizing your own tribe.
I have seen very, very little evidence that reducing the power of the police is a broad right wing goal.
Reducing the power of government to regulate business or guns, enact taxes, force participation in markets, sure I think right wing voters want that. I don’t think those are the issues police are generally policing on a regular basis though.
Reducing the scope of officers day-to-day policing power or the array of tools they can use to subjugate minorities or others seen as “less than” over common offences like drug use or homelessness? Or their ability to abuse protestors, people filming unethical business practices, people filming inappropriate police interactions? You’d have a lot of convincing to do to show that those are broadly held right wing goals.
I don't think you'll be able to successfully draw a disjoint "left wing" or "right wing" circle around people who want there to be limits to the police and/or state's authority. It's more or less a universally held position in liberal democracies.
