> 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?
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?
"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
"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.” "
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.
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.
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