Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
Plus the fact that you can use the term "judicial activism" to apply to any ruling where the Court expands on or reinterprets precedent.
If this really is a free speech issue as well, it gets around the whole deference to the legislature. No matter how one may argue for deference to the legislature, no deference is due where the legislative action infringes on free speech.
|
Plus, the ramifications of the ruling (both in general, and certainly in this case in specific) really can't override what is Constitutionally correct, nor can "20 years of precedent," so really, most of the arguments fall flat completely.
Then again, I'm sure this massive, informed population will certainly be all for amending the f-ing First Amendment, right?
Threaded Mode
