| | Concurring Opinions: Constitutional Law Archives |
 | | The case was extraordinarily hard, and Stevens assigned himself the opinion, despite knowing that: (i) very talented dissenters would level a slew of pretty good arguments against him, and (ii) Kennedy’s vote has not proven, shall we say, 100% reliable in such cases. |
 | | The Court rejected the argument of the plaintiffs—a coalition of law schools and faculty members opposed to the military’s exclusion of gays and lesbians—that the government violated their First Amendment rights by conditioning federal funding on granting military recruiters equal access to recruitment facilities. |
 | | I call this technique of reading statutes narrowly to permit subnational disagreement "interstitial empowerment." By contrast, in the hallucinogenic tea case, he brushed aside the argument that Congress' mention of peyote was meant to be exclusive--therefore licensing judicial creativity in spelling out future exemptions to the CSA based on religious-observance grounds. |
| www.concurringopinions.com /archives/constitutional_law (12408 words) |