4 ms·
I am surprised that the Indiana Supreme Court ruling basically upheld that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states in the absence of specific SCOTUS rulings.
by njovin 8y ago
I am surprised that the Indiana Supreme Court ruling basically upheld that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states in the absence of specific SCOTUS rulings. Can you imagine if individual states felt they have the right to suppress free speech or the press?
I read the official decision from the state court[0] but it's a bit dense for me to get through. It seems like a legal punt, of sorts, in the hopes that SCOTUS would pick up the case.
I'd love to hear someone more qualified break down the state decision.
[0] https://www.leagle.com/decision/ininco20171102267 https://www.leagle.com/decision/ininco20171102267
- intopieces 8y agoState Supreme Courts can't incorporate parts of the constitution against their own laws, this is the role of SCOTUS. It's not a matter of will or desire; it's a matter of jurisprudence.
- bradleyjg 8y agoThe US Supreme Court decided many decades ago that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply wholesale to the states. Instead they held that each right has to be analyzed separately to determine if it should apply to the states. This principle is called “selective incorporation”. At this point most of the rights have been incorporated and only a few have specifically not been incorporated, most notably the right to a grand jury indictment. The excessive fines clause was one of the stragglers that hadn’t been decided either way. (The third amendment probably never will be decided.)