<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Facing Consensus: The importance of the &amp;quot;facial&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;as applied&amp;quot; distinction in the Roberts Court.</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/29/facing-consensus-the-importance-of-the-facial-versus-as-applied-distinctions-in-the-roberts-court.aspx</link><description>The Roberts Court is successfully pursuing consensus across ideological lines using the distinction between facial and as applied constitutional challenges. For a Court that is made up of both conservatives and liberals, it allows both to be both at the</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>