• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The actual text is that absolute, though:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The exceptions have been hammered out in the courts over the years, where this amendment conflicts with other Constitutionally-protected rights. But the fact that this is here, in the very first Amendment, in such an absolute fashion means it must be given a lot of deference when balanced against other things.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      it must be given a lot of deference when balanced against other things.

      By who? Who has to defer to this interpretation? That’s what matters.

      The Supreme Court is not required to decide anything in any particular way. The Constitution could literally say “the sky is blue” and the Supreme Court would have it within their power to decide that the sky is not blue. Forget what the Constitution says. It only matters who has the power to interpret it.

      Fucking vote, so we can get more judges on the court who don’t accept private plane flights and free houses from wealthy donors.