| Kasz216 said:
I suggest more to yesterday's arguements. Lateral arguements and questions were in VERY high use, and seen as VERY relevent because of how ruling that the law is consitutional leads to other lateral arguements that may more cleaerly be unconsitutional, therefore making the whole thing unconstituional. |
That's possibly why I earlier stated such things as, and I quote:
"Does this have uncomfortable legal ramifications? Yes. But the legal analysis is unrestricted by my mere discomfort.
Of course, judging from some of the questions asked yesterday, the discomfort may ultimately be the deciding factor."
"I'm inclined to think that, once Kennedy finds some limiting principle that sounds nice in his head (although busting out tort principles here? REALLY?!), he'll vote for, and maybe bring Roberts along too. If he can't, it'll probably go 5-4 against. I don't see any of the liberal Justices changing course."
"And "I don't feel comfortable with the implications" is not really a legal argument, although I concede that it is commonly used by judges and Justices as the honest impetus behind some rulings. It may even play a deciding role in this case, judging by Kennedy's questions."
And that's just from a thirty second ctrl+f search. But hey, nevermind any of that.
I didn't get a chance to listen to today's arguments. Anything interesting?
