A follow-up to my latest post. I didn't mean to imply that the consequences of an interpretation should be disregarded altogether, but rather to express a certain restraint in deference to the subtlety that is often lost in these discussions, a subtlety that I felt I hadn't yet grasped enough to condemn the Court for its interpretation of the Constitution. (The danger of the decision and that the Court failed to exercise judicial restraint and defied stare decisis were more evident.) I suppose you could say I hesitated because I didn't know how to back up the opinion I wanted to have in the context of con law. Caution in the presence of the obvious, perhaps. (Plus, I was in a bit of a mood to dis the press already. More on that later.)

I realize I still don't have a full grasp on all the issues at hand, but having done a quick read through Stevens's dissent and some of the amici, I was reminded of some aspects to the interpretation of the First Amendment that, frankly, I should have recalled. The majority's opinion was covered more, and seemed less subtle in comparison (correct me if you disagree!). I'm actually still not sure where I stand on the much more narrow matter actually at hand in the case, but I now feel more comfortable in being annoyed at the Court's overreaching decision. So, I join you, liberal friends, and say RAWR. But let us still tread carefully in matters of free speech and remember that an appreciation of subtlety in political matters, though harder to explain -- by definition, and particularly in sound bites -- is essential to productive civil discourse.