4 ms·
> 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 w
by 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