Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It wasn't just them, there was a large amount of reporting that suggested it was of limited scope including the SCOUTUS blog which is a pretty well respected outlet for reporting on the court., ABC News and even the right-wing National Review |
National review is a traditional conservative voice but along with ABC etc, seem to have similar opinion(s) on the case - I think that it is circulated through Reuters or the pool of the news wire service. (Big 5).
I'll re-read the opinion(s) from what you linked tomorrow or later in the week. Editorializing is one thing but I think that on the merits, they are not reporting accurately on this.
Quote:
|
You may have a different legal interpretation to them, some outlets do, but they weren't isolated in their view of this so I think it's unfair to accuse them of being woefully incompetent. They are clearly in the majority on their interpretation of the judgement.
|
Ironically, the majority seem to be look at this from the perspective of pure constructionist philosophy (i.e. just this one specific case within the confines of the constitution) but most of them will only do so when it suits them.
The trend will show that this is a broader precedent that is eventually set but even on the merits of this individual case, I do not see this as a ruling with limited scope. The headlines may have grammatical issues but on the substance of the case, and the ruling plus the trend the court clearly is leaning towards (if members stay similar) is that of a deep protection of religious liberty (as indicated by many cases lately the little sisters / Hobby Lobby etc etc).
The thing is, even though you mentioned that other outlets see it the way that I did, I don't need to read their commentary to validate my views. Not to sound too obnoxious about this, but I know that I am correct - this is not limited the way that it is being opined and the clear trend going forward is a pattern under these parameters for comparable cases, which sets precedent.
ScotusBlog btw is just a rumor mill of what people think will come down the pipeline - kind of like the Michael Bevan in legal scholar form. So basically, worthless.