Supremes are going off the deep end.

1
What the hell, Sam’: Justice Alito slammed for making ‘joke’ about Black children in KKK costumes
Later, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Court's most far-right jurists, decided to use Justice Jackson's hypothetical analogy to make a point, and he did so by mockingly joking about Black children wearing KKK costumes.

"Justice Jackson's example of that, the Santa in the mall who doesn't want his picture taken with Black children," Justice Alito began, getting the basics of the analogy incorrect.

"So if there's a Black Santa at the other end of the mall, and he doesn't want to have his picture taken with a child who is dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, now does that Black Santa have to do that?"
Full article https://www.rawstory.com/what-the-hell ... -costumes/
Experts shocked as Gorsuch angrily accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into ‘re-education program’
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared angry and even hostile at several points throughout Monday’s oral arguments in a case brought by a Colorado right-wing evangelical Christian website designer who is suing the state because she wants to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples who are getting married.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, promises to be one of the most important of the term, and arguments extended more than two hours.

During one of the more heated moments, conservative Justice Gorsuch attacked Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson, claiming the state forced an infamous anti-LGBTQ baker who also went before the Supreme Court, winning his 2018 case in a very narrow ruling, into a “re-education program.”
Full article https://www.rawstory.com/experts-shock ... n-program/

Then we have this monster.
The Supreme Court's next big case can set the stage for more Trump chaos
According to legal analyst Shan Wu, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday that could lead to a ruling that would create chaos for decades and throw future elections into turmoil on a state-by-state basis.

At issue is Moore v. Harper, which could set the stage for the implementation of the “Independent State Legislature Theory” that would have a wide-ranging impact on federal elections by allowing state legislatures to manipulate voting districts even more than they are doing so now.

According to Wu, "Proponents of the 'ISLT'–Independent State Legislature Theory–believe that the U.S. Constitution bestows unreviewable power upon state legislatures to determine how congressional elections–and by extension Presidential elections–are conducted," adding, "Its proponents claim that the 'Elections Clause' of the U.S. Constitution, which states that state legislatures shall prescribe the 'Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,' means no court can review any actions taken by a state legislatures with regards to voting in the state."
Full story https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court ... I#cxrecs_s

Looks like we have a lot to be concerned about and not much we can do about it.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supremes are going off the deep end.

2
One of my friends in New York-- a recovering Limousine Liberal who has slowly been making his way to the dark side-- coined a phrase that I really like for describing this kind of folks who indulge in this kind of petulant, mid-game-rule-change-when-you're-losing behavior: Wicked Little Babies.
“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used.”
― Hunter S. Thompson

Re: Supremes are going off the deep end.

3
I listened to most of that oral argument, Raw Story's interpretation is slanted. There were a lot of hypothetical situations discussed by conservative and liberal justices, it's the same thing that goes on in any appellate court. Appellate judges/justices are thinking how to craft an opinion and bounce hypotheticals off of the lawyers. This isn't a Gay Wedding Cake Part II, this is a different set of facts. In this case the plaintiff is a web designer who has an existing business but wants to get into wedding websites, no one was denied service. As usual the media hypes this case as 'the most important civil rights case', it's not.

Alito posed a hypothetical from one of the amicus briefs, Justice Elena Kagan is Jewish.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supremes are going off the deep end.

4
highdesert wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:32 am In this case the plaintiff is a web designer who has an existing business but wants to get into wedding websites, no one was denied service.
This is what confuses me. Since there's been no enforcement action, how does the plaintiff have standing?
102+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Supremes are going off the deep end.

5
Eris wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:56 am
highdesert wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:32 am In this case the plaintiff is a web designer who has an existing business but wants to get into wedding websites, no one was denied service.
This is what confuses me. Since there's been no enforcement action, how does the plaintiff have standing?
Facts of the case

Lorie Smith is the owner and founder of a graphic design firm, 303 Creative LLC. She wants to expand her business to include wedding websites. However, she opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds so does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings. She wants to post a message on her own website explaining her religious objections to same-sex weddings.

The Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits businesses that are open to the public from from discriminating on the basis of numerous characteristics, including sexual orientation. The law defines discrimination not only as refusing to provide goods or services, but also publishing any communication that says or implies that an individual’s patronage is unwelcome because of a protected characteristic.

Even before the state sought to enforce CADA against her, Smith and her company challenged the law in federal court, alleging numerous constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Question
Does application of the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
As the justices explored in the hypotheticals they posed to the lawyers, their final decision could affect more than same sex couples.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 2 guests

cron