It's worded poorly, but I think she was saying "Because you can't do "this thing," you can't do "that thing" either because it's the same.
i.e. The state can't mandate one because they don't mandate all. Slippery slope there.
It's worded poorly, but I think she was saying "Because you can't do "this thing," you can't do "that thing" either because it's the same.
i.e. The state can't mandate one because they don't mandate all. Slippery slope there.
Yeah, doesn't strike me as a real legal victory, just a precedent for an overarching mandate.
Yeah, doesn't strike me as a real legal victory, just a precedent for an overarching mandate.
It's exactly what you say, now any future challenges can refer to this ruling.
It's exactly what you say, now any future challenges can refer to this ruling.
(post is archived)