[lugsoul]

It is a lame argument because it has been settled by SCOTUS law for almost a century. You got anything that Thompson could've ruled that wouldn't overrule longstanding precedent? I thought not.

[Catspaw]

No, see, in order for Moore to win in federal court, he would've needed a judicial activist who was willing to overturn decades of legal precedence. If Thompson had done that, they would've cheered.

[EternalVigilance]

You obviously love bad precedent.

Equally obviously, I'm not going to disabuse you of that love.

[Texas Federalist]

Settled? Lemon was decided in 1971, I believe. Allegheny and Lee were in the late 80s and early 90s. Lemon, as recently as a few years ago was criticized by the liberal majority of the Court as "widely criticized and often ignored". While I don't have the time or energy to write a legal brief here, I can think of (and I'm sure you can too) arguments for Moore's position that are completely consistent with any of these tests. It's how the judiciary has operated since they abandoned textualism in the 40s-give the judge any logical explanation distinguishing precedent and he'll write his opinion to achieve the outcome he agrees with. You know adherence to precedent is a load of bunk. When they care about an issue, district judges find a way. Of course, Moore's lawyers, in this case, didn't really give the Court much to work with.