1/ Hello @TheBuffaloNews, might I suggest speaking with someone who knows even just the basics of constitutional law before publishing an editorial like this to make sure that you don't beclown yourselves? This is embarrassing.

https://buffalonews.com/opinion/editorial/the-editorial-board-high-court-tilts-into-an-unwanted-absolutism-with-n-y-pandemic-ruling/article_7b7c7d94-3664-11eb-b733-f719982e47af.html

2/ You couldn't even finish the first *sentence* without saying something bafflingly ridiculous.

Whether or not the government's compelling interests could be done in a more measured (i.e., less restrictive) way IS (part of) the constitutional analysis in First Amendment claims.

3/ If the govt addresses its interest it in a way that isn't the least restrictive, it violates the First Amendment. This is basic, 1L (or before) stuff. Questioning whether the decision was based on the least restrictive means test or the First Amendment is utter nonsense.

4/ Unsurprisingly, you don't fare much better after that, managing to fit MULTIPLE @Popehat tropes into a single paragraph. "All rights have limitations" doesn't actually SAY anything. See more about how inconceivably dumb this paragraph is here: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

5/ And this last sentence of that paragraph. Just wow.

What would you say if someone argued that the govt could restrict what The Buffalo News could put on its website because the Constitution doesn't contemplate the internet so shouldn't the government have the ability to act?

6/ This is also nonsense that betrays a complete lack of understanding of the law (and maybe words). Nobody every said there isn't "any sort of boundary." In fact, Kavanaugh's concurrence expressly says he thinks there ARE!

7/ You claim the decision is "zealotry" because you don't agree with their conclusion and therefore assume it can't possibly be based on any sort of supportable analysis. But that's because you actually just don't understand what you're talking about at all.

8/ What you want is for constitutional rights to be subject to the whims of the government. You say so yourselves. To paraphrase: "we should not be strictly adhering to the bill of rights when it is inconvenient or we don't agree with the outcome."

9/ Of course that is ridiculous. There is a framework for analyzing these claims, and it involves asking whether the government regulation could be more tailored.

There's room to argue that the Court got that analysis wrong.

But this, this is definitely NOT it.

10/ I'd possibly be less annoyed by this editorial if it wasn't written in such a self-righteous and assured way, while utterly failing to grasp the most basic parts of the issues it discusses.