copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2017-07-13): The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. In 1835, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people." [...] Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared. [...] When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-03-15): U.S. Supreme Court Takes Away the Constitutional Right to Abortion [...] In a devastating decision that will reverberate for generations, the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned its duty to protect fundamental rights and overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling there is no constitutional right to abortion. Today’s decision—which abandons nearly 50 years of precedent—marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court has taken away a fundamental right. [...] "The Court’s opinion delivers a wrecking ball to the constitutional right to abortion, destroying the protections of Roe v. Wade, and utterly disregarding the one in four women in America who make the decision to end a pregnancy," said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. "While public support for access to abortion is at an all-time high, the Court has hit a new low by taking away – for the first time ever – a constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): We have known for some time that this Supreme Court’s manifest destiny was to overrule Roe v. Wade. Now it has fulfilled it. In the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a five-Justice majority, eliminated the constitutional right to abortion and handed the states the power to restrict the procedure as they wish. There was little suspense, owing to a leak of the draft opinion last month, from which the Court’s final opinion is not substantially different, but the decision still came down as a surreal shock. The three liberal Justices dissented "with sorrow—for this Court, but more importantly, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection." [...] The difference between preserving and eliminating a long-held constitutional right involves a crude reality of political machinations and contingency in filling these seats—which makes it galling to read the Court’s righteous condemnation of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of "raw judicial power," and its self-portrayal as a picture of proper judicial restraint. It is hard to imagine something more like an exercise of raw judicial power than the Court’s removal of the right to abortion, which is precisely what these Justices were put on the Court to achieve. As the dissent put it, the Court is "rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes for the first time in history."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2014-01-01): The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). [...] Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated. The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2004-02-01): But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great Nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four Justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring Nation. [...] The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress—a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it-reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there. We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution—not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2014-01-01): Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated. [...] In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review. [...] To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): The Supreme Court has eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion — but we’re not backing down. We’re taking every step we can to keep abortion accessible for all people. [...] On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — a case involving a challenge to a. Mississippi ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The ruling overturned Roe — ending the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States. [...] While some states did everything they could to restrict access to abortion, for almost five decades the Supreme Court honored Roe’s core principle: that the Constitution protects a person's right to make their own private medical decisions, including the decision to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. The court reaffirmed constitutional protection of abortion access in multiple key abortion rights cases, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-06): This is missing context. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley did say the United States’ retirement age is too low, but she specified that it should increase in line with life expectancy and only for younger people, not current Social Security beneficiaries or those nearing retirement.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-13): Former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley has maintained throughout her campaign that she’s open to raising the retirement age for younger people. [...] Haley’s opponent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, vehemently disagreed with her on raising the retirement age, pointing out that retirees have been paying into Social Security their whole lives and deserve to receive it. [...] One big reason why DeSantis doesn’t agree with Haley about raising the retirement age is life expectancy. Haley insists that life expectancy is increasing, so raising the retirement age just makes sense. But DeSantis says that this isn’t true: life expectancy has decreased in the past five years.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-08-24): Bloomberg Television published this video item, entitled "Haley Says 65 Is ‘Way Too Low’ for Retirement Age" – below is their description. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and former US ambassador to the UN, says not touching entitlements will bankrupt the US on "Bloomberg Markets." [...] Got a comment? Leave your thoughts in the comments section, below. Please note comments are moderated before publication.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-25): Multiple news outlets, including CNN, have reported that Haley said she plans to raise the retirement age and overhaul Social Security benefits for younger Americans. A Haley campaign spokesperson said that Haley’s proposed reforms do not apply to seniors or those approaching retirement age. [...] The claim is misleading, however. In March 2023, CNN reported Haley said she would raise "the retirement age for Americans are currently in their 20s," citing previous comments she made about the topic on Fox News. [...] "Nikki Haley has been clear that she does not support cutting social security or raising the retirement age for anyone currently receiving benefits or nearing retirement," Graham-Barnes said.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-09): Ms Haley previously said, ‘65 is way too low and we need to increase that’ [...] On Monday, Fox News host Bret Baier brought up that her GOP rival, Florida Gov Ron DeSantis, is "hitting you for claiming the retirement age is ‘way, way too low.’" [...] But Baier quoted a Bloomberg interview of Ms Haley in August, in which she said, "65 is way too low and we need to increase that."
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-09-23): Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley wants to raise retirement age, limit benefits for some, to save Social Security Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina who is vying to be the Republican nominee for U.S. president, took a step into the often taboo topic of Social Security and said she would raise the retirement age in a move to save the entitlement program. [...] Haley's comments double-down on her thoughts from a month ago, when she told Bloomberg that "65 is way too low" of a retirement age and any new retirement age would need to be increased in relation to the average U.S. lifespan.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-03-09): Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is calling for changing the retirement age for Americans currently in their 20s and limiting Social Security and Medicare benefits for wealthier Americans, staking out a position on the politically controversial issue of entitlement reform that’s already been the subject of attacks from former President Donald Trump. [...] When pressed for what specific new retirement age she supports, the former South Carolina governor said, "It’s the new ones coming in. It’s those in their 20s that are coming in. You’re coming to them and you’re saying, the game has changed. We’re going to do this completely differently." Haley had first proposed altering the retirement age for "young people" at a town hall in Iowa Wednesday, outlining several changes to entitlement programs. Haley’s campaign, however, did not respond when CNN asked what she would set as the retirement age.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-06): "Nikki says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher," Trump said of his former U.N. ambassador. [...] This is missing context. When Haley said the federal retirement age of 65 was "way too low" she wasn’t talking about current Social Security beneficiaries or people who are close to retiring. She would propose raising the retirement age for younger people, in line with longer life expectancy. [...] Bloomberg Television, Haley Says 65 Is 'Way Too Low' for Retirement Age, Aug. 24, 2023
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-12): "She said recently that the age of Social Security is way too low," DeSantis said of Haley. [...] Haley confirmed in the debate that in her view, people in their 20s "should plan on their retirement age being increased" to better match life expectancy, but again declined to specify an age. [...] Sullivan, Kate and Jeff Zeleny. "Nikki Haley calls for changing retirement age for Americans who are now in their 20s." CNN. 12 Mar 2023.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-09-28): Lower the retirement age? 30% of Gen Zers, millennials say 60 or younger While Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley wants to raise the retirement age of younger Americans to prevent Social Security funds from running out, more than half of them say it should be lowered, says a new survey. [...] Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley touched off a national discussion about the appropriate retirement age recently when she said, "65 is way too low" and should be raised to shore up Social Security and Medicaid.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-02-02): Lowering the retirement age won’t save US seniors While presidential hopeful Nikki Haley proposes a rise in Americans’ retirement age, retirement differences around the world point to one thing: the age doesn't matter. [...] With many countries seeing the average age of the population on the rise, questions about how to invest in the financial, medical, and community support that older adults will need to thrive in retirement, are a hot button issue in politics. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley recently raised eyebrows on the debate stage when she promised to raise the retirement age in the United States.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-08-28): Speaking Thursday to Bloomberg News, Haley criticized most of her competitors for refusing to talk about cutting social services like Social Security in the name of fiscal responsibility. As an example of the kind of reform she favored, she suggested raising the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits "to reflect life expectancy." Then came the big swing and a miss: Asked to specify a new retirement age, Haley declined to get specific but said "65 is way too low." It was a strange position to take. The age to receive full retirement benefits through Social Security today is 67 for people born in 1960 or later; it was raised from 65 to 67 during the Reagan era. When Republicans talk about raising the age, they’re typically talking about raising it to 69 or older. But it seems that Haley’s claim that the current retirement age is "way too low" is an argument for it to be a lot higher than the status quo. Fortunately for those of us who don’t thrill at the idea of working until we die, Haley’s suggestion is so politically unpopular that it has little chance to become policy. Maybe that’s why most of her competitors haven’t joined her in arguing for a higher retirement age. They know arguing for it doesn’t make sense.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-03-28): Republicans have touted raising the retirement age. Former presidential candidate Nikki Haley said she would raise the Social Security retirement age for workers in their 20s. More recently, a House Republican budget proposal also called for lifting the age threshold for Social Security, though it did not specify by how much. [...] Fichtner, who supports raising the retirement age, said that change would need to be paired with a higher minimum benefit, so as not to punish workers who cannot work longer.
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2023-08-27): Nikki Haley tells Bloomberg News "65 is way too low" for the retirement age, advocates attaching it to life expectancy pic.twitter.com/E3yxPl0LIC — Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) August 24, 2023 Haley said the retirement age should be raised to factor in increased life expectancy, but didn’t have an exact figure to share. "I think we have to do the numbers," she said. "We’ve gotta figure out what it is but what we do know is 65 is way too low and we need to increase that. We need to do it according to life expectancy."
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-06-28): A significant proportion of people over 65 have some impairment of executive function, "I think as a general break point, 65 is reasonable," says Mark Fisher, who directs the Center for Neuropolitics at the University of California, Irvine. Other structural changes in the brain become solidified around this age as well – mental processing speed has been shown to decline from around the age of 60 in a study using US data. [...] The very loose threshold of 65 applies to the US, where the overall life expectancy at birth is 76. However, it may be different in countries with markedly different life expectancies and health systems (and there is also substantial racial and other inequality within the US that affects longevity). For example, the life expectancy for men in the US is 73. This is lower than in the top countries, but much higher than the life expectancy of 60 for men in Cameroon, whose president, 90-year-old Paul Biya, is said to be the world's oldest national leader. [...] However, the concept is highly controversial and politicised. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has been leading calls for politicians over the age of 75 to undergo mental competency tests. But the approach has been criticised as ageist and difficult to implement. At the start of 2024, Haley went further by launching an series of politcal adverts that focused on Biden's and Trump's ages, including one that depitced the pair as the lead characters in the 1993 film "Grumpy Old Men".
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-02-12): The ad shows the referee reviewing previous interviews and public statements from Haley suggesting that 65 is "way too low" to start receiving social benefits and "we need to increase that." Another clip shows Haley, Trump's last remaining serious challenger in the 2024 GOP primary, suggesting that the retirement age in the U.S. also needs to change to reflect the increase in life expectancy. The ref then returns to the field and declares: "Nikki Haley clearly said she plans to change the rules and raise the age of Social Security. This results in cutting benefits for 80 percent of Americans."
Claim: Nikki Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher.” (Donald Trump, 2024-01-06)
Evidence (2024-01-28): Former President Donald Trump continued to attack Nikki Haley’s position on Social Security in the run-up to New Hampshire’s presidential primary last week. "Americans were promised a secure retirement. Nikki Haley’s plan ends that," a narrator says in a Trump campaign ad. "Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans." The 30-second spot features older people and a clip of Haley, Trump’s former U.N. ambassador, responding to a question about how she would address entitlement programs. "We say the rules have changed," Haley says in the ad. "We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. What we do know is 65 is way too low, and we need to increase that." [...] Haley’s proposal ties the increased age requirement to gains in average U.S. life expectancy, which ticked up in 2022 after two years of decreases. (Not everyone is expected to live longer, though — research shows that life expectancy is shorter for people with lower socioeconomic status — so raising the retirement age based on that metric would reduce the years they’d receive Social Security benefits.)