(June 4, 2015 at 9:35 am)Anima Wrote: Now what makes the lawyer for the respondents the shit in the oral arguments is after his 5 minute argument for rational basis he then proceeded to argue (without being obligated to do so) why the prohibition would pass strict scrutiny.
How did he argue that it passed strict scrutiny? Was it under a procreation centric rationale?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)