I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
The question at hand is, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?” Gorsuch said. “When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” he wrote.
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.
I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.