re: #109 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

These are white conservatives’ ideal negroes: the more incompetent, the better. In their minds, it proves some kind of point, or something.

I don’t get your reference. What did I miss? I’m multitasking at work.

I skimmed through the dissent. the gist seems to be this

When interpreting a constitutional provision, “the goal is to discern the most likely public understanding of [that] provision at the time it was adopted.” McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 25) ( Thomas, J. , concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the Constitution is a written instrument, “its meaning does not alter.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n , 514 U. S. 334, 359 (1995) ( Thomas, J. , concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted). “That which it meant when adopted, it means now.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

As originally understood, the First Amendment ’s protection against laws “abridging the freedom of speech” did not extend to all speech. “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568, 571–572 (1942) ; see also United States v. Stevens , 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5–6). Laws regulating such speech do not “abridg[e] the freedom of speech” because such speech is understood to fall outside “the freedom of speech.” See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , 535 U. S. 234, 245–246 (2002) .