Puzzling case

[Mark Tushnet]

Eugene's comment -- "I still think no-one would see the government as
endorsing the hundreds of thousands of vanity plates" -- exposes the
problem, but doesn't address it.  Why should what *he* thinks -- or what
life-tenured judges think -- about a contestable question of social
meaning prevail over what *I* -- or elected representatives -- think?  I
could understand the position were it that no one could reasonably think
anything other than what Eugene thinks, but the KILLYRMA and SMKE CRCK
examples demonstrate, to me at least, that my view of social meaning is
not unreasonable.  How is Eugene's position different from, "What I
think is good social policy is what the Constitution requires"?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010810/b4f110de/tushnet.vcf