I can't help but notice the disparity in the treatment of the two social issue cases decided in the past two days. Yesterday, when SCOTUS made a very narrow ruling, sidestepping the substantive question, the Many Screeching Monkeys proclaimed "Assisted-Suicide Law Upheld" and claimed In a Blow to Administration, Ruling Paves Way for Other States to Follow Suit. They might just as well have written: "Assisted Suicide Law Upheld on Technicality," or "Blow to Administration Paves Way for Law to be Challenged on Other Grounds." Meanwhile, this morning, when the ruling goes the other way, it's "Court Dodges Abortion Ruling." What happened to "In Blow to Abortion Rights, Ruling Paves Way for States to Enact Abortion Restrictions?"
Now then: as I said below, I'm tickled that Sandra Day penned this morning's decision, but when she writes:
Generally speaking, when confronting a statute's constitutional flaw, this Court tries to limit the solution to the problem
I am tempted to respond, "Since when?" But I'll repress it because now that she's established this standard for Court behavior, I vote to have it recognized as super-duper precedent.
UPDATE: Read the smart response from "anonymous" in comments.
