Originally Posted by
CB HI
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW.
It figures you'd evade quoting from Hiibel.
Let me refresh your memory: YOU are the one who argued that a legal analysis has no precedential value, that the only thing that matters is the majority opinion itself (and as an aside, a concurring opinion is not the majority opinion, and only carries weight if it is the swing vote on a 5-4 decision).
Then, when you want to evade quoting from the majority opinion, you quote from a LAW REVIEW article?
I assume that means you're going to continue to evade supporting your position with anything that the Court said in Hiibel.