* The radical result. I could be persuaded to the contrary, but the case has me thinking it may be the most radical in Supreme Court history. An obvious reason is the result: The Court constitutionalized a pop-definition that didn’t exist 20 years ago. Speaking jurisprudentially (although not morally), this was a much greater departure than such widely-criticized Substantive Due Process cases as Dred Scott, Lochner v. New York, or Roe v. Wade.
FWIW, Dr. Natelson is a renowned relatively conservative Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer
Well if we’re going for “biggest ball of made up bulls***”, perhaps it is the most egregious in that regard.