[philman_36]

One last thing...
You keep saying "read the dissent". While reading the dissent gives an understanding of how the case could have gone it doesn't change how the case did go.

I would say argue the decision, not the dissent. The dissent isn't "the law of the land". We're stuck with what we've got now until, or if, this decision is ever overturned.

[FredZarguna]

I would say argue the decision, not the dissent.

Derp? That is what we are doing, arguing the decision. In which case the best arguments against your position have already been advanced by Scalia, Thomas et al.

If you are saying "argue the consequences" of the decision, again, derp? The conservatives on the Court have told you what the consequences are going to be. And they aren't good. They are as bad and far reaching as any decision since Dred Scott.

[867V309]

The dissent isn't "the law of the land". We're stuck with what we've got now until, or if, this decision is ever overturned.

Right you are, because your boy Roberts failed to do his job.