I mean, c'mon, Jeff. The excerpt that Lafinjack cited is central to the Court's reasoning. It was precisely because the statute in question effectively prohibited the kind of speech the petitioners were seeking to engage in - the "personal, caring, consensual conversations," apparently right up to the door of the clinic - that the statute was ruled unconstitutional. If "the issue is more complicated," you'll simply have to explain how, because as a matter of constitutional law - and this is why it came out unanimously, which unsurprisingly surprised you - it turned out to be a relatively straightforward application of existing doctrine, if perhaps predicated on a sympathetic conceptualization of the speech in question.
In short, Jeff, you can't parade the ruling as though it vindicates your understanding of the Constitution. You keep doing this - you're doing it on Noel Canning, as well - like you can just dispense with all of the Court's reasoning and fill in your own. That's not the way our legal system works, and the more you do it, the further from reality you divorce yourself.
I mean, c'mon, Jeff. The excerpt that Lafinjack cited is central to the Court's reasoning. It was precisely because the statute in question effectively prohibited the kind of speech the petitioners were seeking to engage in - the "personal, caring, consensual conversations," apparently right up to the door of the clinic - that the statute was ruled unconstitutional. If "the issue is more complicated," you'll simply have to explain how, because as a matter of constitutional law - and this is why it came out unanimously, which unsurprisingly surprised you - it turned out to be a relatively straightforward application of existing doctrine, if perhaps predicated on a sympathetic conceptualization of the speech in question.
In short, Jeff, you can't parade the ruling as though it vindicates your understanding of the Constitution. You keep doing this - you're doing it on Noel Canning, as well - like you can just dispense with all of the Court's reasoning and fill in your own. That's not the way our legal system works, and the more you do it, the further from reality you divorce yourself.
Reply
Leave a comment