> I read that section of his opinion, and it certainly seems like the answer is "no". I don't think you understood what you were reading then. You can't just

> I read that section of his opinion, and it certainly seems like the answer is "no". I don't think you understood what you were reading then. You can't just naively analyse someone applying rules other people wrote, and see any strong evidence in what rules he would write given the opportunity. In some cases (but not this one) a judge will write a side note explaining his thoughts, and even asking for the rules to be changed. But here, we just have someone saying "the Supreme Court said X must lead to Y, and this looks a lot like X, and thus it must lead to Y". The most you can gain from that is an understanding of how he interprets X; you can't learn anything about whether he thinks Y ought to follow X.