originally posted by Kat[/b
But the argument that SCOTUS cases are somehow 'conservative' or 'liberal' doesn't make a lot of sense.
Not the case itself, but the justices on the court. Since those who generally have leftist tendencies on the court voted to allow the speech and those who generally have conservative tendencies on the court voted to disallow the speech, I find it fairly obvious that in this particular case it can be somewhat accurately be said that liberals were more in favor of freedom of speech than conservatives.
originally posted by Cocky
That was what I said Larkin - the weight of law. I made the distinction from teh outset.
Thats nice. Why are we still talking about this? We both agree on what the distinction of the minority opinion is. It is important, but has no weight of law. But yet you feel the need to keep focusing on what I say when I am (accurately) correcting someone else on this matter (Gysgt).
By the way, I also find it telling that neither of you have addressed my point in bringing up this case in the first place, rather you have nitpicked on individual facets of the case which have either been incorrect or seemingly unjustified. The point was, again, to refute a generalization that liberals are always against free speech and conservatives always for it. Can we accept that I've done that and move on?