Either you’re contradicting your earlier self, or you’re trying to score some weird point by nitpicking the word “objective”, or you’re really unclear on the discussion. At any point, I’m not seeing anything productive coming out of this.
There’s no contradiction there. You claim to have discovered some new kind of statement - the semi-objective opinion-fact. I don’t agree that that’s a thing, but shine on, you crazy diamond.
That doesn’t mean I think that people can’t be called upon to list the facts that formed their opinion. (Actually, you can do the same thing with ‘aesthetic’ opinions, it’s just that the analysis doesn’t run very deep. IE : “Why is it delicious?” “It’s very sweet, and has a vanilla taste, and I have always liked vanilla.”) Sometimes people even form opinions based on bad information! That’s why it’s useful to analyze.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that a subjective thing cannot be meaningfully analyzed, and that’s not always the case.
If I say “the Postmaster General should be fired!”, that opinion can be defended, but not falsified. It is not a claim in any usual sense of the word. Someone wishing to challenge it might test my knowledge (“Do you know who the current PG is? What fire-able offense do you think he has committed?”) and then might argue with me further (“I don’t agree that that is a fire-able offense. The PG from a hundred years ago did much worse!”). Both sides in the discussion ideally receive new information, and everyone goes home better informed, whether their opinions have changed or not.
You disagree? That’s fine. That’s just, like, your fapinion, man. 
The upshot of all of this is that if you’re right about no such thing as a defensible subjective claim, then you’re wrong about constitutionality: it’s way more like, “Is Bob an American citizen?” than it is like, “Is ice cream delicious?” The only leeway you can possibly have is admitting that there’s a subjective component to the objective question of whether something’s constitutional.
I think there is. You think that it’s impossible to have a semi-subjective question, which means that you’re just 100% wrong about constitutionality.
I think that when someone describes something as “unconstitutional”, they can be saying one of at least five different things:
(1) The supreme court has clearly and unquestionably ruled on this issue
(2) The supreme court has not ruled on this issue, but I have a deep understanding of constitutional law, and I can make a detailed precedent-citing argument as to why this would likely be found unconstitutional, were it to make it to the supreme court
(3) The supreme court has ruled this issue constitutional, but I can make a detailed legal argument, citing precedent and so forth, as to why I believe they ruled incorrectly, and I hope it will be overturned at some point in the future
(4) I have a moderate knowledge of the legal system. I can use terms like “protected class” and “due process of law” and know approximately what I’m talking about. And to the extent that I know anything about the legal system, this definitely sounds like it should be unconstitutional, although I admit that I don’t know enough about the topic to make a really detailed argument.
(5) This seems evil and unAmerican
Crucially, I don’t think someone is wrong to be using definition (4) or even definition (5). And if that’s what they intend, and you start debating them as if they are using definition (1), frustration is going to ensue. So why not, before jumping in feet first and pointing out how wrong wrong WRONG someone is, stop and take a moment to attempt to verify which definition they are using?
(Worth pointing out: sometimes it’s pretty obvious from context which definition someone is using… the more emotional they are, the less likely it is to be (1). The more the thread is already full of lawyers offering learned legal opinions, the less likely it is to be (5) )
He uses the pink ones on you?
That slut! He said I was special!
Regards,
Shodan
I think I see the problem, and you’re still using the word ‘claim’ in there. I just confirmed, though, that I agree there are such things as defensible subjective opinions. I just went on about it for paragraphs in the very post you quoted. Which is what someone saying “This is unconstitutional!” is usually expressing in these forums. A defensible, subjective opinion. (That feels so redundant to have to spell out that an opinion is subjective…)
Whether or not something is constitutional is not objective, except in the legal-ruling sense. So prior to a ruling, a law is not objectively constitutional or not. After a ruling, it may be said to be objectively one way or the other in a legal sense, but someone who says that the laws struck down by the Citizens United ruling were constitutional, and should have been upheld, are not contesting that a decision was reached, they are saying they disagree with the decision and would have ruled differently, which is an entirely legitimate thing to do.
TL;DR version : Just because something is defensible does not make it partially objective. People can look at facts, which are objective, and reach different opinions about those same facts, because opinions are subjective.
Thumbs up to MaxTheVool for laying it out.
Primarily because I do think it’s wrong to be using (5). But it seems to me the better answer is illustrated by one of my two endings below:
RANDOM DUDE: The cops can’t just come up to you for no reason and start asking you questions! That’s totally unconstitutional.
ME: Actually, it’s perfectly constitutional. The police are just as free as anyone else to approach you and ask questions, as long as you are free to disregard their inquires and go about your business. It’s only when they seize you by restraining your liberty, and you’re not free to leave, that the Constitution is implicated. See Terry v Ohio.
RANDOM DUDE, OPTION 1: Fuck a goat, you piece of shit! I was just saying how this seems evil and unAmerican, not talking about the law! You really ARE just Sculpted into Human Shape, aren’t you?
-or-
RANDOM DUDE OPTION 2: Ah, yes, excellent point, if I were talking about constitutional law, but I was more using a generic term that means “seems evil and unAmerican,” not really discussing the law. But since this is GD, I should have been more clear, and I want to make clear that you are absolutely in no way a piece of shit Sculpted into Human Shape (in case anyone might wonder).
Bricker’s so cute when he plays with his strawmen!
Your tendency to jump up someone’s ass for not using the word ‘constitutional’ the way you like isn’t why you’re a piece of shit sculpted into human shape - the reason for that is your steadfast dedication to rape culture and slander of a victim of sexual harassment.
THIS stuff is just the dingleberry cherry on top.
A classic thread sculpted into Dope form:
RANDOM BRICKER POST/OP: Liberals believe X Preposterous and Infinitely Hypocritical Thing, which lies outside the realm of Civilized Behavior.
A FEW DOZEN RESPONDENTS: That’s a ridiculous strawman.
RANDOM BRICKER POST: What about this glaring example?
MORE RESPONDENTS: That in no way supports your claims, and here’s why (…).
RANDOM BRICKER POST: (flailing, further accusations of hypocrisy and lack of understanding of The Law).
SEVERAL PAGES OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSES: You’re wrong, you’ve failed to understand your own cites, you’re a turd sculpted into the shape of a lawyer etc.
MODERATOR(s): Note/Warning, take it to the Pit.
RANDOM BRICKER POST: You know, I’ve considered the polite responses of posters Theta and Xi, and I now acknowledge I was wrong to say that liberals encourage the teaching of goat-felching in public schools.
RANDOM CLUELESS SYCOPHANTS: Thank you, Bricker! What a swell guy you are to admit error and apologize! You’re a wonderful poster!
Rinse and repeat, over and over. It’s a successful formula, why should he stop?
Hey! I already posted those choices! Copying my sillier post and rewriting it more clearly is obviously unconstitutional!
That last is largely due to liberal fanatics, adherents of the extreme middle. You may assert that the Earth is round, and he will answer that he agrees with you, but, on the other hand…
What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Well, pretty soon, if its not too much trouble!
The dear hearts believe so firmly in the power of reason that they have faith that reason will affect the unreasonable, they will applaud even the merest twitch towards reason, even if it is little more than a sophistic exercise in semantics, twisting words like balloon animals.
Feh! as they say in Lubbock.
The earth is not round 
Absurd.
The very accusation is unconstitutional.
Semantic twisting and legalistic argument are your strong suits. Droll wit doesn’t make the top ten. Even if there are ten.
Some of us don’t have the stamina to be the North Going Zax of Argument!
This is the reality that you live in?
Really?
His considerable intelligence and expertise on some subjects has as of today been outweighed for me by his comments on Gianforte, the role of the press on the Trump era, voter suppression, and health care. His intellect only serves evil.