@mjs_DC @Slate @daveweigel The argument has been made already, by Govs. Sandoval and Corbett, among others.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel Well, Sandoval cited the 9th Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard, and Corbett cited taxpayer expense.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel And both cited the likely outcome of the case, which I think easily could be argued anywhere.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel Even the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel I think it could be argued easily anywhere in the country, yes.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner Well, fair enough. I think any AG *could* say Windsor slays state bans. But I wouldn't criticize an AG who declines to do so.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner Point being, it's a live argument until Kennedy says otherwise, and until then, I wouldn't slam an AG who takes the wrong side2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.