FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2527984406> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2527984406 abstract "When the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must provide same-sex couples with equal access to the legal institution of marriage, Chief Justice Roberts did not merely disagree with the majority’s reasoning. Instead, employing a tactic more commonly associated with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Chief Justice used his dissent to launch a broadside casting doubt on the decision’s legitimacy. He accused the Court of “[s]tealing” the marriage issue from the people through “an act of will, not legal judgment,” and he insisted that the majority’s approach had “no basis in principle.” In addition, Roberts raised concerns about the decision’s impact on religious liberty, warning that it “[o]minously” failed to address the First Amendment’s free exercise guarantee. The Chief Justice’s harsh condemnation of the Obergefell decision has helped inspire calls for “constitutional resistance,” and that resistance movement is now playing out simultaneously with efforts to exempt religious objectors from laws requiring equal treatment of same-sex couples. Those efforts have come to dominate the conversation about religious accommodation — a conversation that has become increasingly polarized in recent years. Against that background, this Article makes three arguments. Part I contends that the Chief Justice’s dissent in Obergefell falls far short of substantiating his claim that the ruling “has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” Most critically, Roberts completely fails to engage the same-sex couples’ strongest equal protection argument, which was endorsed by the Solicitor General, prevailed in several lower courts, and rested on well-established precedent. Moreover, the Chief Justice’s claim that the Court has not previously interpreted the Constitution in ways that interfere with how marriage has been traditionally “defined” founders on the very definitional sources he cites. Part II contends that the full import of the Chief Justice’s discussion of religious liberty in Obergefell has been underappreciated. By invoking the Free Exercise Clause to raise concerns about the conscience rights of those who object to same-sex marriage, Roberts implicitly calls into question the Court’s landmark decision in Employment Division v. Smith. There is some irony to the Chief Justice doing so in a case where he is criticizing the majority for ignoring precedent, and a further irony in the fact that some of the most prominent supporters of the Chief’s Obergefell opinion were once ardent defenders of Smith. But the more important point is that the longstanding effort to have the Court reconsider Smith may now have a very powerful new ally. Part III contends that the Court should reconsider Smith and restore some measure of constitutional protection against generally applicable laws that impose incidental burdens on religious practices. While powerful arguments have been made that judicially administered exemption regimes have proven unworkable and unprincipled in the past, those regimes have almost all utilized the language of strict scrutiny, and that language creates inevitable problems. Those problems need not attend a regime in which the Court applies only modestly heightened scrutiny to protect against incidental burdens on religion that the government could easily lift without compromising non-trivial state interests. Such an approach would guarantee a meaningful constitutional floor of religious exemption rights in situations that do not threaten the rights of third parties, and championing the restoration of such a floor has the potential to bring some unity of purpose to the conversation rather than more division along ideological and political lines." @default.
• W2527984406 created "2016-10-14" @default.
• W2527984406 creator A5077140640 @default.
• W2527984406 date "2016-01-25" @default.
• W2527984406 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2527984406 title "A Regrettable Invitation to 'Constitutional Resistance,' Renewed Confusion Over Religious Exemptions, and the Future of Free Exercise" @default.
• W2527984406 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2527984406 type Work @default.
• W2527984406 sameAs 2527984406 @default.
• W2527984406 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2527984406 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2527984406 hasAuthorship W2527984406A5077140640 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C2780300103 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C47855350 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C523173360 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C56617239 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C126322002 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C139621336 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C144024400 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C17744445 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C199539241 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C2776154427 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C2778272461 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C2780300103 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C46295352 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C47855350 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C523173360 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C56617239 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C71924100 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C94625758 @default.
• W2527984406 hasConceptScore W2527984406C98184364 @default.
• W2527984406 hasLocation W25279844061 @default.
• W2527984406 hasOpenAccess W2527984406 @default.
• W2527984406 hasPrimaryLocation W25279844061 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W1479768616 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W1493790999 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2009811765 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2269779330 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2289994738 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2618601623 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2767617408 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W282749102 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W2903394592 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W296287528 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W311632158 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W3121728553 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W3122605032 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W312596271 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W330617036 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W340134937 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W60891034 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W744501501 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W3122653593 @default.
• W2527984406 hasRelatedWork W323582859 @default.
• W2527984406 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2527984406 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2527984406 magId "2527984406" @default.
• W2527984406 workType "article" @default.