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.
-
-
This is a good reference; a beacon of light in this darkest timeline.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.
-
They'll just make up some sophistical garbage. What do they give a shit?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also purely political
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s almost as if these judges are twisting rulings to advance agendas...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I blame you lawyers. If we Lit PhDs were in charge none of this would have happened.
-
I don't think us programmers would have messed this up this badly either...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is Calvinball, which is what the left and liberals need to embrace. Should push for Justices who will do what must be done
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
At least we don't have to hear about activist judges from the RW anymore.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is getting zero coverage. And it breaks my heart.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.