Judge Kane found there was a compelling interest. But not narrowly tailored. There have to be two standards: narrowly tailored and compelling interest. Narrowly tailored was not met and, consequently, this effort to jimmy around with the regulations is not going to cure the problem. What is going to happen, if the Senator is successful in defeating the amendment, is that some other plaintiff is going to have to bring some other case, at a cost of thousands in legal fees, to get this struck down one more time.
Lincoln Chafee: “Judge Kane found there was a compelling interest. But not narrowly tailored. There have to be two standards: narrowly…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing legal standards and implications of an amendment during Senate debate.
Share
More from Lincoln Chafee
In the world of diplomacy, some things are better left unsaid. For that reason, I would have preferred that President Bush not send the April 14, 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. Nevertheless, I gave my qualified support to S. Res…
Does the Senator hear from his school committees and local councilmen about the rising costs of special education and the difficulty that places on the property tax payer?
Included within Senate Report 107-219, and repeated in Chairman Stevens' Overview and Summary of his amendment to H.J. Res. 2, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, is report language stating the Appropriations Committee's strong support for…
I thank the Chair. I share Senator Kennedy's thoughts of prayer and peace for Senator Inouye. My thoughts are with the Inouye family.





