Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Mine does, but the S.Ct.'s obviously does not. And I'm not sure whether y having a multiple really has any meaning. These are still qualitative judgments that need to be made.
|
Any test that has "compelling" in it is a self-justifying analysis, the same way that calling something "remarkable" is of course true, because you have just remarked upon it. To say that the Supreme Court found something to be a "compelling state interest" simply means that it found it was compelled, against abstract principles, to favor group interest over individual interest.
But the fact that individual interests are the hump over which group interests must mount, and not vice versa, means that it's not simply a matter of deciding we'd all be better off if group interests prevailed in this instance. That's why I say a simple utility analysis is what the legislature does; the court is supposed to stymie group interests when a valuable individual interest, harmful in the individual instance but beneficial in the abstract, would otherwise be lost.
