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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

reACTIONary

(7,261 posts)

10. Since the 1950s....

Reply to angrychair (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:32 PM

20 hrs ago

"Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights."

That doesn't sound very limited to me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records [View all] Polybius Wednesday OP

SCOTUS angrychair Wednesday #1

Nine to Zero... reACTIONary Wednesday #3

It is fascist angrychair 23 hrs ago #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary 22 hrs ago #6

This case angrychair 21 hrs ago #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary 20 hrs ago #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k 12 hrs ago #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius 14 hrs ago #17

I did angrychair 13 hrs ago #18

9-0 eggplant Wednesday #2

It likely does not angrychair 21 hrs ago #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary 20 hrs ago #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair 20 hrs ago #12

As a person who pursued a pro se case for more than five years against the servicer and noteholder of two mortgages pat_k 9 hrs ago #22

That is clearly Gorsuch's Christian nationalist agenda -- i.e., declare it "constitutional" to impose PERSONAL religious pat_k 11 hrs ago #21

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates 23 hrs ago #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary 20 hrs ago #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair 19 hrs ago #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary 19 hrs ago #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair 19 hrs ago #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary 17 hrs ago #16

Not a bad decision. They can challenge. Doesn't mean they'll win. pat_k 13 hrs ago #19