The travel ban case says you can’t look at an official’s un-revoked statements demonstrating religious animus in deciding whether his act is constitutional—no matter how blatant and central to his policy. The wedding cake case says you must—no matter how equivocal and marginal.
-
Show this thread
-
Planned Parenthood v Casey said the state could put an antiabortion script in a Dr’s mouth. The NIFLA case says the state can’t require a crisis pregnancy center to put a sign about available medical services and the center’s limitations up in its lobby. It’s pure Calvinball.
18 replies 512 retweets 1,194 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
It'll be curious to see if they'll accept a lawsuit - surely coming - challenging the older laws. And if they grant, how they'll manage to differentiate the two cases.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Replying to @AndresFreundPol @nycsouthpaw
(All the references to Casey in the opinion already seem pretty ridiculous and it doesn't seem that hard to find one that fits the criteria from NIFLA.)
1:47 PM - 26 Jun 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.