said no federal funds shall be used to implement the ban on talking about the political views of r ruritania, we tried, but the money was taken away from us, it's not unconstitutional. >> or you could say that the law is passed by congress but vetoed by the president. is there a violation of the constitution? >> there would not be. but in my hypothetical, or in justice breyer's where it actually goes into effect -- >> we're off on a tangent because there's no injury. in this situation when the law doesn't go into effect. but coming back to what justice breyer, i believe, is attempting to say, i don't know, mr. goldstein, that i understand either, and i think justice kagan asked you this. why does it matter, and we don't care whether someone is a republican or not in elrod and branty and those cases. and you say it's only because it's a policy. the intent of the government is to say i'm not going to promote anybody who is not a democrat or not a republican. >> more than a policy. it will actually have adverse consequences for someone exercising their constitutional right. >> they've gone alon

said no federal funds shall be used to implement the ban on talking about the political views of ruritania, that is to say the law won't go into effect -- we tried, but the money was taken away from us -- it's not unconstitutional. justice scalia: or -- or you could say that the law is passed by congress but vetoed by the president, is there a violation of the constitution? mr. goldstein: there would not be. but in my hypothetical vote in which -- or justice breyer's where it actually goes into effect -- justice sotomayor: we're off on a tangent because there's no injury in this situation when a law doesn't go into effect. but coming back to what justice breyer, i believe, is attempting to say i don't know, mr. goldstein, that i understand either. and i think justice kagan asked you this. why does it matter -- and we don't care whether someone is a republican or not in elrod and branti and those cases -- and you say it's only because it's a policy. the intent of the government is to say i'm not going to promote anybody who is not a democrat or not a republican. mr. goldstein: more than a p

said no federal funds shall be used to implement the ban on talking about the political views of ruritania, we tried, but the money was taken away from us, it's not unconstitutional. >> or you could say that the law is passed by congress but vetoed by the president. is there a violation of the constitution? >> there would not be. but in my hypothetical, or in justice breyer's where it actually goes into effect -- >> we're off on a tangent because there's no injury. in this situation when the law doesn't go into effect. but coming back to what justice breyer, i believe, is attempting to say, i don't know, mr. goldstein, that i understand either, and i think justice kagan asked you this. why does it matter, and we don't care whether someone is a republican or not in elrod and branty and those cases. and you say it's only because it's a policy. the intent of the government is to say i'm not going to promote anybody who is not a democrat or not a republican. you need >> more than a policy. it will actually have adverse consequences for someone exercising their constitutional right. >> they've