So, She views this as an issue of which the details should be decided at the State level. Is this by grand design (ie bias) or does she have any merit here? (hint: few on the supreme court agree,,, if that matters). What are the long term implications for the 2nd? I'm a normal guy like you in that Constitutional law is not my day job. I still wonder what all of this means to us long term though (life appointments are a bitch). In theory, if she was our benevolent dictator, States would decide each issue. Some States carry particular views on the subject. Could one judgement snowball and influence others? I say the 2nd is clear. Could one individual change this?