07-10-2018, 10:59 PM
I'm not quite ready to say that for me although I see why one could say it, my point was mainly that a) it is a defense against activist re-definitions to prohibit that which has been allowed and common for years (which the left is fond of doing) ... and b) I think K's point was not to make new points, rather to show the logical extension of the existing, SCOTUS one. O, and c) it probably has the weight of historical precedent as well, but I'm not well-versed on chapter-and-verse if that's true.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"