“The assumption that government must be neutral among conceptions of the good generally appears in cases in which the Court protects speech that government would restrict. But the force of this assumption can also be seen where the Court has upheld restrictions on speech, most notably, in obscenity cases. Although the Court has been reluctant to protect obscenity under the First Amendment, its reasoning in recent obscenity cases displays the powerful influence of neutrality assumptions on constitutional law.”

— Michael J. Sandel

Chap. 3. Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech
Democracy's Discontent (1996)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 17, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "The assumption that government must be neutral among conceptions of the good generally appears in cases in which the Co…" by Michael J. Sandel?

Michael J. Sandel 21

American political philosopher 1953

Related quotes

“I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

Samuel Alito (1950) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

"Application to become deputy assistant AG" http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015136-2101r.html, Washington Times, (1985)

“I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like.”

Sonia Sotomayor (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002) (dissenting).

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”

Anthony Kennedy (1936) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (Opinion of the Court).

“The Court ought never to come to the conclusion that two cases in the same Court, or in Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, are in conflict, unless it is obliged to. I agree that if two cases are in conflict the Court must say with which of them it agrees.”

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher (1815–1899) British lawyer, judge and politician

Duke of Devonshire v. O'Connor (1890), L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 473.

“A Court of equity can mould interests differently from a Court of law; and can give relief in cases where a Court of law cannot.”

Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon (1732–1802) British Baron

Clayton v. Adams (1796), 6 T. R. 605.

“It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the Courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate."”

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) logician, one of the first analytic philosophers and political activist

Source: 1920s, Sceptical Essays (1928), Ch. 10: Recrudescence of Puritanism

“In case of private jurisdictions, the Court has inclined not to intermeddle.”

Thomas Denison (1699–1765) British judge (1699–1765)

The King v. Bishop of Ely (1750), 1 Black. Rep. 58. If it be a matter

“The Court has not time to indulge in the discussion of imaginary cases.”

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale (1783–1851) British lawyer

Sidebotham v. Barrington (1841), 3 Beav. 529.
Quote

“Evidently, the governing standard is to be what might be called the unfettered wisdom of a majority of this Court, revealed to an obedient people on a case-by-case basis.”

Antonin Scalia (1936–2016) former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

On legislating from the bench: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=654 (1988) (dissenting).
1980s

“[T]he constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.... It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.... So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty.... Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions... It would be giving the legislature a practical and real omnipotence... The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.”

John Marshall (1755–1835) fourth Chief Justice of the United States

5. U.S. (1 Cranch) 137
Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Michael J. Sandel 21

Related quotes

Related topics