You have to wonder ... if the attack on the WTC hadn't happened, would the Supreme Court have agreed to hear this case? Or would they have agreed to hear the case about the scarf? My sense of the court is that they might well have declined -- they frequently tend to run from controversial cases until the issues become utterly intractable -- but it's hard to tell. They might also well have realized that even stickier cases would be forthcoming, and they didn't want to set any more precedents than they already had.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!