An appointee of President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy was reliably independent, the famous swing vote who at times stood with the four fellow justices appointed by Republican presidents and at others with the four appointed by Democrats.
On the high-profile political decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats pretty much can be counted on to vote as one.
Wednesday, the court issued an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that ruled against the Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, a California state law that required anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to post information about where women can find free or low-cost services, including abortion.
The 2015 California law violated freedom of speech as protected in the First Amendment, Thomas opined, as it forced individuals with deeply held beliefs against abortion to promote the procedure by posting a "Government-scripted" speech.
The legislation should be as offensive to free speech fans as a law requiring that abortion clinics distribute anti-abortion material.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, "California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions - such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions - often found in other states."
As for the law's alleged goal of informing the public, Thomas wrote, the state could wage a public information campaign instead of forcing people who oppose abortion to advertise it.
https://spectator.org/wheres-the-independent-voice-among-justices-appointed-by-democrats/
On the high-profile political decisions, the four justices appointed by Democrats pretty much can be counted on to vote as one.
Wednesday, the court issued an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that ruled against the Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, a California state law that required anti-abortion pregnancy clinics to post information about where women can find free or low-cost services, including abortion.
The 2015 California law violated freedom of speech as protected in the First Amendment, Thomas opined, as it forced individuals with deeply held beliefs against abortion to promote the procedure by posting a "Government-scripted" speech.
The legislation should be as offensive to free speech fans as a law requiring that abortion clinics distribute anti-abortion material.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, "California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions - such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions - often found in other states."
As for the law's alleged goal of informing the public, Thomas wrote, the state could wage a public information campaign instead of forcing people who oppose abortion to advertise it.
https://spectator.org/wheres-the-independent-voice-among-justices-appointed-by-democrats/
No comments:
Post a Comment