3 ms·
The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply. Think I'm joking? This is the stated judicial philosophy of the major
by 32163704 4y ago
The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply.
Think I'm joking? This is the stated judicial philosophy of the majority of Supreme Court justices. There is no traditional deeply rooted in American tradition that says anything about the Internet, either.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> The first amendment doesn't have anything to say about the Internet, so it doesn't apply. Moreover, when taking that mode of interpretation, it doesn't say anything about the States, nor does the 14th Amendment say anything about some of the rights protected against federal intrusion by the Bill of Rights.
- 32163704 4y agoI believe the process you’re talking about is called incorporation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of... The Court will rely on this precedent where convenient, I suspect.
- dragonwriter 4y agoWhat I am talking about is that the particular mode of originalism that seems to have been adopted in Dobbs (and especially the extension specifically naming the broader doctrine of substantive due process as needing reconsideration in Thomas’ concurrence) is one which it is hard to see incorporation under the due process clause surviving if applied in any intellectually consistent, coherent manner.
- 32163704 4y agoAgreed. If it does stand, it will be in order to maintain ideological consistency, not judicial consistency. What a mess.