5 ms·
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Sinc
by ls612 8y ago
That’s not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessive fines.
Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- runako 8y ago> Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome. Do you read anything into this? Is there a reason a justice would prefer to highlight the excessive fines provision over the due process protections?
- rukittenme 8y agoIts guidance for future rulings in the lower courts.
- mikeyouse 8y agoAbortion. And immigration. "This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not. The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am." https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901 https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1098242972162768901 "Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rights through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause. This is a wonky distinction, but one with huge stakes for immigrants. Due Process Clause protects “persons.” P or I protects “citizens.” " https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1098238933719240704 https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1098238933719240704
- sbov 8y agoWouldn't this completely screw over corporations? Or do we have some other mechanisms that will continue to protect them from these abuses them but not other types of "persons"?
- learc83 8y agoCorporations in general have the constitutional protections that people acting in a group have. Corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction. For example corporations don't have a right to free speech because they are "persons" but because we extend the rights of the individuals who make up the group to the group itself.
- gowld 8y ago> we extend the rights The constitutional basis for that is not secure. It's not obvious that your right to free speech extends to secretly paying someone else to speak. If I leave an iPod in a public park playing a speech, the authorities can remove or disable the iPod, not a violation of my speech rights.
- icebraining 8y agoI'm pretty sure they can also remove you; what they can't do is remove you based on the content of your speech, but then again I doubt they can have a policy of only removing iPods playing political speeches with certain viewpoints.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- selimthegrim 8y agoRBG herself is well known to be in favor of a different grounding. If Roe is weakened or overturned, let's test that case on its merits.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThe due process issue was tangential. From the ruling[1]: The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
- colmmacc 8y agoAs a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".
- saas_sam 8y agoNo country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.
- wool_gather 8y agoParent said "protections" and referred to "due process", not the broader topic of "rights". So, yes, non-citizens don't, e.g., get to vote. On the other hand, if they get arrested, the same standards of evidence apply as for a citizen.
- Tomte 8y agoGermany provides many Basic Rights to everybody. Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".
- renholder 8y agoSame with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.
- Tomte 8y agoRight. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country. Smart move. :-)
- DuskStar 8y agoSo, in other words, Germany provides different rights for citizens and non-citizens. Which is what the GP was saying. Not having basic protections for non-citizens would be rather worrying, but let's not act like the mere existence of a difference is worth freaking out about. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Justice Thomas's concurrence not providing these protections to non-citizens would be a good thing. I'm just saying that 'non-citizens should have the same rights as citizens' isn't a position held by any country on the planet.
- OnlyOneCannolo 8y agoFor the curious, this is called the "incorporation doctrine".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome. It's the same outcome in this case, but it is rather different in the broader effect; not all people subject to punishment by states are citizens of the US.
- basch 8y agoIt's actually a different part of the same sentence. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."