How about the common sense thing? It's the parents' job to monitor their kid's internet activities. If you give your kid unfettered access to the internet on their phone of computer than you should be held liable for the results. If your kid lets their friends access porn on those insecure devices that too is your fault. If their school fails to lock down their network to block inappropriate material then that school should be held liable.
The current Texas law puts every adult user's privacy at risk rather than holding the parents responsible for their own failures. In addition, it's written so broadly that it would quickly be used against any site the Texas Republicans choose to target in their culture wars such as sex-ed and LGBTQ+ education sites.
We hope. There are a frightening number of Trump supporters still in positions in our government that could end up backing a second insurrection. Look at all (literally all) of the Secret Service messages from on or about January-6. Oh wait, you can't because every single agent erased their phones and the servers on which those messages were stored. An that was after they were told to retain those messages. How many people still in positions of power would, either discretely or overtly, support a second insurrection?
I can't say for certain that all right-wingers are integrity challenged, but it sure seems that way. It's almost like you wouldn't be right-wing if you weren't already lacking in integrity. Then again, maybe it's the other way. Maybe people have to sacrifice their integrity in order to support right-wing positions.
The Exceptions Clause states "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (emphasis mine)
Congress can regulate SCOTUS. In point of fact, Congress can define what cases the court has jurisdiction over with the exception of "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." In those cases, SCOTUS has final say per the Constitution, but in all other cases, Congress could assign final appellate authority to a lower court.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress absolutely has, per the Constitution, clear authority to regulate the SCOTUS. How's this for an exception. The Supreme Court shall have no Jurisdiction in any case where any member of the court has a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse themselves?
The vast majority of felonies should not be a bar to holding public office. What if you had a felony conviction for possession of weed? Should that bar you from holding office or should you be allowed to run for office to try and change an unjust law?
The only crimes that should bar one from office are the ones that already do under the 14th Amendment, under which Trump should already be ineligible. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and then participated in a conspiracy to violently overthrow it.
If there are grounds to seize the funds then that is what they should do. Don't make them return them, the donors will just find another way to give it back to him. Seize the funds and use them to help cover the costs of prosecuting this wannabe tyrant.