Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Blue_Adept

(6,499 posts)

1. It's not the 7-2 part that's narrow

Reply to jodymarie aimee (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:17 PM

Jun 2018

It's the intent of what was presided over. It's limited to this particular case and not intended as a sweeping judgment.

Similar to the Bush V Gore in that it was "narrowly applied" and not for a wider piece.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why are they calling 7-2 decision Narrow? [View all] jodymarie aimee Jun 2018 OP

It's not the 7-2 part that's narrow Blue_Adept Jun 2018 #1

I thought that was odd, too. Hong Kong Cavalier Jun 2018 #2

It's not the vote that was narrow, it was the decision... Wounded Bear Jun 2018 #3

'Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, relied on narrow grounds, elleng Jun 2018 #4

Assume because of how it was applied mvd Jun 2018 #5

It's a "narrow" decision because of the case, not the number of votes. yardwork Jun 2018 #6

It's not the vote count, it's what the ruling said Lee-Lee Jun 2018 #7

Thanks for clearing it up for me jodymarie aimee Jun 2018 #8

The scope of the decision is narrow. It applies only to this baker due OliverQ Jun 2018 #9

There's a lot of poor reporting going around. apnu Jun 2018 #11

They should have clarified the parameters were narrow, and not all inclusive still_one Jun 2018 #10