Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhaway84773 | Hacker News Reader

There was nothing “correct” about either decision.

They may have correctly followed a legally justifiable theory that led to their decision, but there were also other equally, if not more, legally justifiable theories they could have followed to reach the opposite decision.

For example, a theory that would incorporate the idea that a badly acting legislature cannot be the only one to depend on to curb the badly acting legislature when the bad behavior’s goal and effect is to shape the very mechanism that provides the only check on their behavior, ie voting.

View on HN

You go from "pedantic, but hard to argue against" to "lost the plot and are more wrong" when you say "there were also other equally, if not more, legally justifiable theories" and then list a much harder to arrive at and less legally defensable reason that is also unrelated to the actual facts of the case...

The best criticism of the ruling, imo, is that it should have been decided under the freedom of press clause. The result was correct, but if it was decided under that clause it could have avoided the campaign contribution implications.

> but there were also other equally, if not more, legally justifiable theories they could have followed to reach the opposite decision.

Only what the law actually says is justifiable in law.

> For example, a theory that would incorporate the idea that a badly acting legislature cannot be the only one to depend on to curb the badly acting legislature when the bad behavior’s goal and effect is to shape the very mechanism that provides the only check on their behavior, ie voting.

On what legal basis is this based on?

The fact these cases made it to SCOTUS basically ensures there were multiple legal theories that arguably correct. If there was only one true interpretation, the cases would have been solved by a lower court. Then SCOTUS itself was split (along partisan lines no less).

Flag burning made it to SCOTUS too, and was a 5-4 decision as well.

And there were reasonable arguments on both sides. And there were 2 dissents and 1 concurrence filed, so even within the Court, there were different interpretations, even among Justices who agreed (on each side).

No, I don't believe any argument that burning a flag isn't protected speech is reasonable.

Well then you have 4 supreme court justices you need to argue with. What is the law of the land and what is moral don't always line up. All we get is the hope that our system tends toward morality over time.

I don't need to argue with them because flag burning is already protected speech and the justices are all dead by now.

Nearly 40 years later, it may seem to be a settled question.

But then we have Roe, which was settled, until it wasn't.

> The fact these cases made it to SCOTUS basically ensures there were multiple legal theories that arguably correct.

That doesn't seem to support the idea that

has to be one of those theories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com