3 ms·
We read dcolkitt's comment differently. You read: > Citizens United was based on the law being [objectively] unconstitutional, not the court’s interpretation
by matt_kantor 6y ago
We read dcolkitt's comment differently.
You read:
> Citizens United was based on the law being [objectively] unconstitutional, not the court’s interpretation of the law [being that it is an unconstitutional one].
I read:
> Citizens United was based on the law being unconstitutional [in the opinion of the court], not the court’s interpretation of [how] the [constitutionally-compatible and therefore still on the books] law [should be applied to Citizens United].
- OpieCunningham 6y agoOK. My interpretation seems to be much closer to the words as written. I'd give myself credit for being a textualist, if I didn't think that label was just a scam. In any case, your read is that the court had an opinion about the constitutionality of CU (which is exactly what it had). And my read is exactly the same: opinion = interpretation.