Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Supreme Risk An interactive guide to rights the Supreme Court has established -- and could take away.
https://projects.propublica.org/supreme-risk/. . .
To get a better sense of which rights may be at risk — in whole or in part — ProPublica scoured judicial opinions, academic articles and public remarks by sitting justices. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have had decadeslong careers and lengthy paper trails. By contrast, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice, has almost no prior record. We found dozens of rights that at least one sitting justice has questioned. Below, you can explore these rights and the objections levied against them. We include federal legislation that’s been introduced to protect a given right, as well as lawsuits active in lower courts that could become vehicles for the justices to revisit existing rights in the future.
. . .
Right to be free from state-sponsored displays of religion
A line of Supreme Court precedent dating to the 1980s has interpreted the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion — known as the establishment clause — to encompass a right to be free from certain state-sponsored displays of religious symbols and religious speech. The court has ruled that some religious statues on public land violate this right but that opening legislative sessions with a prayer generally does not.
Key Cases: Stone v. Graham (1980), Marsh v. Chambers (1983), Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
3 justices have questioned some aspect of this right
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Thomas
. . .
While the court’s conservative bloc has found ways to curtail the scope of this right, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have questioned whether it should exist at all. In their view, state-sponsored religious displays are likely never unconstitutional, in light of what they see as founding-era practices and a tradition of religion in American public life. They have also argued that for plaintiffs to have standing to sue they must show that the display caused them personal harm beyond offending their sensibilities.
. . .
Right to contraception
The Supreme Court has held that states generally cannot bar or place serious burdens on the public’s access to contraceptives. The right was established pursuant to a legal doctrine called substantive due process. According to this doctrine, the Constitution’s due process clauses generally bar the government from infringing on rights the justices have deemed “fundamental,” even though the text of the national charter does not mention them. Substantive due process underpins numerous other rights, like the bygone federal right to abortion access and the right to same-sex intimacy.
Key Cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
1 justice has questioned some aspect of this right
Clarence Thomas
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 case that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion access, Justice Thomas — long a critic of substantive due process — authored a concurring opinion in which he called on the court to undo the right to contraception in a future case.
To get a better sense of which rights may be at risk — in whole or in part — ProPublica scoured judicial opinions, academic articles and public remarks by sitting justices. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have had decadeslong careers and lengthy paper trails. By contrast, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice, has almost no prior record. We found dozens of rights that at least one sitting justice has questioned. Below, you can explore these rights and the objections levied against them. We include federal legislation that’s been introduced to protect a given right, as well as lawsuits active in lower courts that could become vehicles for the justices to revisit existing rights in the future.
. . .
Right to be free from state-sponsored displays of religion
A line of Supreme Court precedent dating to the 1980s has interpreted the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion — known as the establishment clause — to encompass a right to be free from certain state-sponsored displays of religious symbols and religious speech. The court has ruled that some religious statues on public land violate this right but that opening legislative sessions with a prayer generally does not.
Key Cases: Stone v. Graham (1980), Marsh v. Chambers (1983), Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
3 justices have questioned some aspect of this right
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Thomas
. . .
While the court’s conservative bloc has found ways to curtail the scope of this right, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have questioned whether it should exist at all. In their view, state-sponsored religious displays are likely never unconstitutional, in light of what they see as founding-era practices and a tradition of religion in American public life. They have also argued that for plaintiffs to have standing to sue they must show that the display caused them personal harm beyond offending their sensibilities.
. . .
Right to contraception
The Supreme Court has held that states generally cannot bar or place serious burdens on the public’s access to contraceptives. The right was established pursuant to a legal doctrine called substantive due process. According to this doctrine, the Constitution’s due process clauses generally bar the government from infringing on rights the justices have deemed “fundamental,” even though the text of the national charter does not mention them. Substantive due process underpins numerous other rights, like the bygone federal right to abortion access and the right to same-sex intimacy.
Key Cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
1 justice has questioned some aspect of this right
Clarence Thomas
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 case that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion access, Justice Thomas — long a critic of substantive due process — authored a concurring opinion in which he called on the court to undo the right to contraception in a future case.
MUCH MORE at the link: https://projects.propublica.org/supreme-risk/
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
