Kagan ?

[Danzig]

i think there's a big difference between deciding the govt's intent on suppressing speech and reading a mind.

for instance, what was the govts intent on banning child porn? protecting kids.

what would be the intent on banning kkk rallies? suppressing disagreeable speech that the govt (and many citizens) doesn't agree with. admirable? perhaps. reasonable? to most. a slippery slope? absolutely. so, the law is recognizable. the intent is the point. she's exactly correct in this regard.

[hi_im_god]

it's also entirely non-controversial and in the judicial mainstream.

interpreting law without interpreting intent would be a fairly radical departure. we could bring back poll taxes to disenfranchise the poor if intent weren't a fit subject for judicial review.