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.
No comments:
Post a Comment