In response to:

Cleaning Up After Ruth Bader Ginsburg

kenle2 Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 1:03 PM
So your group can subscribe to a clearly stated belief system that does NOT involve inflicting actual physical or financial harm to another person ("fire in a crowed theater"), but the group can't collectively demand adherence to those beliefs in order to become a member, officer or public representative of the group? So I guess you "would not want to commit" to whether the democratic party can legally refuse to allow pro-choice or anti-gun control members to speak at their conventions. Good luck with that standard.

Of all the sloppy and confused decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in recent years, few compare with CLS v. Martinez (2010). The decision was more than just poorly reasoned. It was also based upon willful blindness toward factual misrepresentations by the defendants in the case. Justice Ginsburg authored an opinion she knew she could arrive at only by pretending to believe facts she knew were not true.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, offers a good critique of the decision in his new book, Unlearning Liberty. I write about it today...