Which of those examples do you think buttresses your case that the federal government can deny someone opportunities as punishment for their speech?
Look at the summaries.
They’re almost all about ensuring someone has taxpayer financed access to materials in their own language, or ensuring someone doesn’t get denied this or that. I didn’t see a single one supporting the idea that the government can deny a person opportunities because of what that person has said.
Post something relevant.
“For examples, view the cases list.”
Obviously, I didn’t have time to read the cases.
The government-backed principles I quoted have been around for most of my life. They are so certainly to be backed by the courts that cases are settled before legal papers are filed with a court.
They will be upheld by the Nine, probably by all Nine.
You and Hillary’s Pakistani can wave your copies of the Constitution as vigorously as you can.