copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-03-24): Professor Strauss points to numerous examples of constitutional "anomalies" that most people take for granted today where Supreme Court decisions are completely inconsistent with or at great odds with constitutional text. For example, the First Amendment applies to the President even though it refers exclusively to Congress, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the federal government even though it mentions only the states, and the word "another" in the Eleventh Amendment limiting suits against states to plaintiffs from "another" state has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to somehow mean the "same" state.13 [...] As a descriptive matter, Judge Posner and Strauss are more accurate. The Justices care much less about constructing constitutional rules according to the written Constitution and its history than overtly balancing contemporary costs and benefits and examining prior cases. I have documented before how the Justices have dramatically changed constitutional doctrine across broad areas of constitutional law even though there have been no changes in the constitutional text or judicial discoveries of new, relevant historical evidence.25 Similarly, I have written about the lack of any serious historical analysis in many of the Court’s most important cases.26 To the best of my knowledge, Barnett has not and would not argue to the contrary. Rather, he argues for a significant change in how judges decide constitutional law cases. In fact, he stated that fostering such a change (to text and history and away from subjective judicial values) partly motivated him to write his new book.27
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-27): The Biden administration is firing back amid intensifying Republican-led efforts to legislate and implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks following the Supreme Court’s historic decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — the White House framing that push as a GOP effort to take away women’s rights. [...] "Already Vice President Pence and GOP Leader McCarthy have announced their support for a nationwide ban on abortion, passed by Congress. No woman in any state – no matter how pro-choice that state – would have the right to choose. Abortion would be illegal everywhere. The ultra-MAGA agenda on choice has never been about ‘states’ rights.’ This has always been about taking away women’s rights, in every single state," Klein said in a statement provided exclusively to CNN.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion Millions of women in the US will lose the constitutional right to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned its 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision. [...] The three justices who disagreed with the majority - Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - wrote that they had done so "with sorrow - for this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection".
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-03-24): In this month’s issue, Professor Neal Katyal and Thomas Schmidt join a distinguished group of lawyers and judges who criticize the "canon of constitutional avoidance" — the idea that courts should try to interpret statutes so as to avoid raising difficult questions of constitutional law.1 Although the Supreme Court has described this canon as a "settled policy,"2 the canon exists more by dint of repetition than by force of argument. Its critics include the most eminent circuit judge of the last generation,3 two of the most eminent circuit judges of the present generation,4 and a host of thoughtful scholars.5 [...] According to Katyal and Schmidt, moreover, the handwaving sometimes ends up having precedential effect in later cases.38 The scope of that problem is not clear. Indeed, Adrian Vermeule has previously made an opposing assertion: "The case law is rife with constitutional questions that the Court has avoided by construction, only later to hold, when forced to confront the question under a different statute, that the constitutional claim should not prevail."39 But Vermeule’s examples are not really apt.40 While we lack systematic research on the horizontal, vertical, and interbranch precedential effects of avoidance decisions, it is possible that the canon about avoiding constitutional questions is bad for constitutional doctrine.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): "The court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized," he said in remarks delivered from the White House, adding, "With Roe gone, let's be very clear: the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk." [...] Attorney General Merrick Garland denounced the decision from the Supreme Court, saying in a statement that by ending the constitutional right to an abortion, the majority "upended the doctrine of stare decisis," or fidelity to precedent. [...] Johnson previewed that in undoing the constitutional right to an abortion, the Supreme Court has "unleashed a movement" that will fight to ensure women have access to abortion services.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2015-12-15): Amendments to the Constitution have required "equal protection," eliminated the poll tax, and made it unconstitutional to restrict voting based on race, sex, and age for those over 18. For years the Supreme Court relied on these amendments to expand the franchise, and the broadening of voting rights, which was associated with the civil-rights movement, was widely accepted as a marker of progress toward a just society until about 2000. More recently, in an environment of increasingly rigid partisan loyalties, controlling who votes offers more leverage than persuading voters to change their minds, and thus access to the ballot itself has become an arena of intense political conflict. These conflicts constitute what the election scholar Richard Hasen calls "the voting wars." Most of these wars end up in the courts, where the rules of engagement—defined by our Constitution—do not sufficiently protect voters’ rights to exercise their franchise. In the absence of an explicit right to vote, the Court has found no issue with a variety of regulations that unnecessarily interfere with voting.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-01-24): And because the government—unlike the rest of us—has no constitutional rights of its own, under some circumstances speech that is protected by the First Amendment when uttered by a nongovernmental speaker may still violate specific constitutional protections when uttered by the government. To be sure, the Supreme Court has recognized that we don’t have a First Amendment right to shut down the government’s speech just because we disagree with it: The government must speak on a wide range of issues and take a variety of policy positions in order to govern. But the constitutional analysis is very different when the government’s speech—including its lies—interferes with or punishes its targets’ exercise of their constitutional rights. [...] And to be sure, many governmental lies—like the government’s lies to avoid political and legal accountability for its misconduct—may inflict more diffuse and less tangible harm, such that it may be hard to trace a causal connection between the government’s speech and the denial of a specific constitutional right. That these lies’ harms are intangible or diffuse, however, does not mean that they’re painless or unimportant: They are instead often deeply dangerous, threatening to corrode our democracy. But constitutional law often has limited capacity to address diffuse, collective, or causally complicated harms. As I’ve written elsewhere, "[t]hese complexities suggest that the government’s most catastrophic lies may be those especially resistant to redress."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-04): Wisconsin's Sen. Tammy Baldwin: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." [...] "I believe it is true that our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right," Baldwin said. [...] Baldwin said she believed the "Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-20): Fact check: Has the Supreme Court ever taken away a constitutional right? [...] "I believe it is true that our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right," Baldwin said. [...] Baldwin said she believed the "Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-06-01): The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments to forbid methods of execution that needlessly subject condemned inmates to terror, pain or disgrace. Although the court has never invalidated a method of execution, it has recognized that some currently in use would run afoul of this right if administered differently, such as a lethal injection without first rendering the prisoner unconscious. [...] Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right of citizens of one state to travel unimpeded through other states. The core right to interstate travel has become a live question in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated the federal right to abortion access, because legislatures are now seeking to enact laws penalizing travel across state lines to secure an abortion. [...] The Supreme Court has recognized that students do not surrender their constitutional rights when they arrive at a public school. But it has also ruled that their rights are limited by the need of school officials to maintain a productive learning environment. For instance, students retain a right to free speech and expression on campus as long as their conduct doesn’t disrupt school activities. Similarly, students still hold privacy rights on campus. However, school officials don’t require a warrant or probable cause to search or seize their property; they must only have a reasonable suspicion that a search will turn up evidence of a violation of the law or of school rules.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2019-08-07): Explanation: This amendment is one of the most ignored in the Constitution. It is a protection against quartering, using private homes to house military troops in times of war or peace. The provision was included in the Constitution because the practice had been used by the British in the Colonial Period, but the U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a case based on the 3rd Amendment. [...] The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the power of the national government, but does it also apply to state governments? After the 14th Amendment was added in 1868, the Supreme Court interpreted this amendment to apply to the states as well as the national government. The federal courts have interpreted and applied the 14th Amendment’s "due process" and "equal protection" clauses to the states in a variety of situations. This protects citizens because it limits the ability of the states to ignore the rights and liberties implied by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. [...] - The Supreme Court has held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment means the states must apply the Bill of Rights.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-28): Supreme Court overturns constitutional right to abortion on Jun 24, 2022 at 10:13 am [...] The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion, casting aside 49 years of precedent that began with Roe v. Wade. [...] Alito began his 79-page opinion by observing that abortion "presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views." But the Constitution does not refer to abortion at all, Alito stressed. And although the Supreme Court has recognized some constitutional rights as protected by the due process clause, even if they are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to an abortion is not one of them, Alito explained. Among other things, he noted, the court has required such rights to be "deeply rooted in our Nation’s history." But until the second half of the 20th century, Alito observed, there was no support in U.S. law for the right to an abortion – indeed, he pointed out, most states regarded abortion as a crime.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): The Supreme Court erases the constitutional right to abortion [...] Nearly a half-century after five Republican-appointed justices joined two Democratic appointees to recognise a woman’s right to abortion, a different quintet of gop-tapped justices has voted to eliminate it. On June 24th the Supreme Court renounced Roe v Wade, the 1973 case that legalised abortion nationwide, and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the decision that extended it (with modifications) in 1992. The vote was 6-3, with all but Chief Justice John Roberts voting to scrap Roe. The Supreme Court has never before withdrawn a constitutional right that so many Americans have relied upon for so long.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2024-10-03): But he countered the concerns Minow surfaced by recalling a quote by the late Harvard Law Professor Paul Freund ’31 S.J.D. ’32, in which the constitutional scholar asserted that the Court "should never be influenced by the weather of the day but inevitably … will be influenced by the climate of the era."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): THE PRESIDENT: Today is a — it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized. They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans. [...] The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-05-04): Baldwin wrong that Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right [...] "I believe it is true that our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right," Baldwin said. [...] Baldwin said she believed the "Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2024-09-16): The answer is that this Court has rejected the majority’s pinched view of how to read our Constitution. . . . [I]n the words of the great Chief Justice John Marshall, our Constitution is "intended to endure for ages to come," and must adapt itself to a future "seen dimly," if at all. . . . That is indeed why our Constitution is written as it is. The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes. So they did not define rights by reference to the specific practices existing at the time. Instead, the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. And over the course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers’ invitation. It has kept true to the Framers’ principles by applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal understandings and conditions. . . .
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-04-05): Circumscribing the power of all branches of government at all levels might be thought to correspondingly increase the freedom of individuals, who are less subject to government regulation. In fact, however, with the exception of a few favored areas where the Court created new rights — the right to carry guns in public80 and the right of government officials to pray at public events81 — the Court’s recent history has been one of withdrawing rights from the public. Most famously, it eliminated the right to reproductive freedom, giving states the power to compel birth.82 It has also effectively eliminated the power of federal courts to enforce the right to vote, announcing that it was withdrawing from efforts to protect the right to vote against partisan gerrymandering a few years back83 and following up by affirmatively preventing federal and possibly even state courts from blocking concededly discriminatory gerrymandering schemes.84 And it declared that one of the most famous rights given to criminal defendants — the Miranda warning — was not in fact a right at all that citizens could enforce, but just a prophylactic rule that the Court might change at any time.85 At least one Justice signaled his desire to go further by rolling back protections for marriage equality and contraception access.86
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2023-07-06): A year after overturning the constitutional right to abortion, the court over the next month could turn back the clock on voting rights, LGBTQ rights, and decades of progress in diversifying higher education. It could give its stamp of approval to a fringe legal theory that would let state legislatures subvert elections without any chance of court review. And it could strike down the Biden administration’s student debt relief program, which would have damaging financial consequences for millions of Americans. [...] Frustration with the Supreme Court’s radical right turn has spurred action, demonstrating that the high court does not have the only say on people’s constitutional rights. Last year’s ruling that ended the constitutional right to abortion played a major role in swinging midterm elections for candidates who support reproductive rights. In the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, a wave of litigation prompted many state supreme courts to rule that state constitutions protect abortion rights, even if the U.S. Supreme Court denies those protections at the federal level. Citizens in Kansas and Kentucky, meanwhile, rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would have ended protections for abortion; and other states have passed measures strengthening abortion rights laws.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-27): Never in its history has the Supreme Court ended a basic constitutional protection. To be sure, following its seminal 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a fundamental right, the Court narrowed its scope in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But Casey preserved Roe’s core principle by prohibiting states from imposing previability abortion bans. Dobbs swept this right away. [...] Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, stressed the Court’s neutral and limited position. Kavanaugh contended that the only right touched by the Court was the right to abortion; other Fourteenth Amendment liberty and privacy rights remained undisturbed. Even as he asserted that the Court simply was returning regulation of abortion to the democratic process, he also argued (somewhat inconsistently given the scope of the majority opinion) that there are constitutional limits to the regulation of abortion such as a state bans on interstate travel for abortion.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists. [...] "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," they wrote. [...] Near the end of Friday's decision, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. "
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2022-06-24): "Abortion is health care, and no matter who you are or where you come from, Oregon doesn’t turn away anyone seeking health care. Period. Let me be clear: You cannot ban abortion, you can only ban safe abortions — and this disgraceful Supreme Court decision will undoubtedly put many people’s lives at risk, in addition to stripping away a constitutional right that disproportionately affects women and has been settled law for most of our lifetimes," said Governor Kate Brown. "For all the Americans today feeling scared, angry and disappointed — for everyone who needs an abortion and does not know where they can access safe reproductive health care –– please know you are not alone, and the fight is not over."
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2005-09-14): In 1976, the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that "the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution." The Court ruled that the new death penalty statutes contained "objective standards to guide, regularize, and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing the sentence of death." (Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153). Subsequently 38 state legislatures and the Federal government enacted death penalty statutes patterned after those the Court upheld in Gregg. Congress also enacted and expanded federal death penalty statutes for peacetime espionage by military personnel and for a vast range of categories of murder. [...] We can reduce delay and costs only by abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts – with the attendant high risk of convicting the wrong person and executing the innocent. This is not a realistic prospect: our legal system will never reverse itself to deny defendants the right to counsel, or the right to an appeal.
Claim: "Our Supreme Court has never taken away a constitutional right." (Tammy Baldwin, 2022-05-04)
Evidence (2012-01-04): Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) states in part, "Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of employees to go on strike whether they have a union or not. Specifically, in 1962, the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Washington Aluminum upheld the NLRB’s decision that workers in a non-unionized workplace who walked out because it was too cold were protected under the NLRA and the employer could not fire them.