For case in point, in holding that the obviously essential point out desire in public education ought to give way to a competing claim by the Amish to the influence that extended official schooling threatened their way of life, the Court declared: "There can be no assumption that today's the vast majority is 'right' and the Amish and other individuals like them are 'wrong.' A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or pursuits of other people is not to be condemned since it is distinctive." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. Oral Arg. 33. More importantly, the procedural posture of the circumstance demands that we affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment if there is any ground on which respondent may perhaps be entitled to aid. I hence see no foundation for the Court's decision to take care of this circumstance as an "as used" challenge to 16-6-2, see ante, at 188, n. Cf. ante, at 188, n.
