It looks like the 9th circuit ruling will be upheld. In part because California decided not to appeal their least restrictive alternative (which the 9th also struck down).Stryc9 said:The current Justices weren't all appointed by Obama, at least one was appointed by Bush Jr. and Clinton and Bush Sr. and so on. They will not, and do not have to do what the President says.archvile93 said:*snip*
So? That just means they'll most likely do what the president wants. So what's the president's take on this then?
It's like Starke and MaxPowers666 have said, there's no telling what decision they're gonna come up with and we probably won't know tomorrow. I'll say that it's up in the air what they'll do but I'm thinking they'll come down on the side of the Constitution here and not what the idiot scare-mongering watchdog groups want.
The biggest danger here is a split ruling, where both sides get some of the things they want, but my recollection is that that kind of ruling hasn't been in vogue for over a century.
What is disappointing (to me) is that neither side seems to have really done a good job with their cases. California never managed to shake the issue with films or the vagueness of the definition, and the EMA never manged to get the debate off children buying video games.
EDIT: ...or that the best solution in this case would be through more support from non-state actors.
There's some really funny stuff in the transcript if you have the hour to burn reading it, and enough familiarity with constitutional law to follow it.