A little while ago I wrote a post under the number above severely criticizing the Supreme Court opinion on that Cake maker case (assuming no compromise is accepted on its rule as merely applying the law). But apparently I missed something making more sense than I took from what it said. Here is the simple thing which in my view the court did not sufficiently point out but would have made the opinion look to many readers like me, less strange. I also have been wondering about the difficulty in applying the religion clause of the First Amendment. It seems as if a big part of that is done through an interest balancing approach for related laws on the religious freedom of a person versus the interest of the state. It appears that in order to do that at least some laws related to the issue are not judged for constitutional conformity in their general form but instead until they are applied and that is why you see in the opinion how the law was applied on a specific case was taken as an indication for the validity or invalidity of the end result there.
No comments:
Post a Comment