+59: High Courts Construing Directives

Unless it is just an emphasis to what the reasoning in the opinion leads, I think that it is unacceptable for a higher court to tell its lower courts that a decision it made should not be construed broadly, or that it has limited scope, and similar restrictions. Otherwise, what is the difference between this power to make exceptions and just doing whatever wanted?   

+58: "Israeli" Vs. "Jewish"

I am thinking if a man suddenly finds out that he came from Jew parents, of course that may change nothing in whatever believe he had already chosen but it is still a fact that should not be denied, how could he express that ancestral belonging when he wants? Actually, even including the person having the Judaism faith, I think that having the forced association implied with the word "Jew" between faith and ancestral belonging as the only way to express ancestral belonging,   could hardly be a healthy thing. I think that the word "Jewish" is too general for expressing ancestral belonging at that level. On the other hand, the word "Israeli" as a reference to being a descendant of Jacob is probably more needed and better fit for the use of this mere ancestral belonging than giving that state the name of that man. The word "Israelite" seems a better fit for belonging to that state if it can still be used. Anyway, even if there is not a ready word for that I think that both surrendering to that forced association or ignoring a fact seen as self related as this could be, because of that association, may both be unhealthy choices. Freud once expressed himself as "Godless Jew", having to show subtracting the faith part of that association.   

Here, in this country, it is important to point out that intending to express existence is a different thing from intending to express separation and contrast.      

     

+57

About probably a month ago I heard a mentioning about how the atomic bombs "ended the war" and it immediately brought to me the thought of being where I hear claims of benefits for 9/11 done, instead, by the stronger and wining side.  

+56

I mentioned before that I once saw on the internet the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court speaking about their need to explain themselves. If the opinion for that cake maker was written with that consideration and arrived like this, what would have happened had it not? I think that the main question to be answered in the mind of any reader is whether the decision taken against the cake shop owner was correct or not. The court on the other hand spoke about the process of reaching that decision without providing any explanation why that should replace looking at the end result as the main question or Why the process couldn't be taken as a separate question instead.      

+55

Although I do not know if considering this could have affected things related to that cake maker case but I want to point out that the original purpose of that related law or the beginning root purpose of such laws may have not been to give minorities the luxury of forced acceptance but instead to protect them from the hardship of refusal.

+54

I wonder if those judges will later author a book titled Gymnastic of The Judiciary. Anyway I intend to think about the point deduction related to that cake maker case in Colorado.  

+53

Continuing from the preceding post:

However, shouldn't taking how the process of interest balancing was implemented for the validity of the end result, be used when you try to guess that validity from far not when you have the argument and even the arguing parties available for you to decide? Where else did the court use its decision making power to invalidate the result of an earlier process arguing insufficiency of that process while it has the argument available for it to decide the question of the validity of that same end result itself? The opinion of the court did not say anything about why it could not do that. All the talk about hostility to religion, while maybe gone after on a different ground,  matter only for the issue of constitutional freedom of religion in as much as it led to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Otherwise, the process itself does not matter in that regard.

Like I said earlier, I do not feel okay with unneeded forcing of somebody to violate his religion or beliefs but this is about the role of the court as merely applying the laws at hand.