This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.