$\textcolor{red}{\text{enthusiastic agreement?}}$
Racist Republicans are racist.
Water is wet.
Justice Alito jokes with Justice Kagan that, “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time,” during oral arguments in a free speech case.
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1599815390976430081?t=yRIhRAMqIE4g6jdGq465IQ&s=19
1 Like
It’s just so liberating when you’re accountable to no one.
2 Likes
I don’t think this is worth it’s own thread, so I’m parking it here for now.
There’s an important case before the Supreme Court about the right of businesses to refuse service to people based on “religious belief”. I’m very surprised the SC took up the case despite it’s potential importance. I believe the Alito “joking around” stuff from Whiskey above is part of this case’s discussion.
The “business” is website design for engaged couples. The owner wishes to deny service for marriages she doesn’t approve of. However this business doesn’t even exist yet. Also, no one has been denied service or complained. The owner sued the state preemptively. Its performance art, giving a setup for the SC to allow discrimination.
1 Like
Yes, Alito’s comments were from this case. I’m assuming that whoever writes the dissent will make that point one of her arguments – I don’t understand how it even ended up before the SC.
1 Like
You would expect the SC just to allow the discrimination against gays without even taking up the case?
2 Likes
Does the state have a law prohibiting the owner from denying service to same-sex couples? If they do I guess I could see allowing the preemptive suing if the state law is potentially unconstitutional and interferes with the owner’s business plan.
That said, it’s hard to see how the state law would be unconstitutional. I’ll have to read up on the details.
However this business doesn’t even exist yet. Also, no one has been denied service or complained. The owner sued the state preemptively.
I don’t think that bothers the SC if the claim is that the law violates constitutional rights.
People have routinely sued to block enforcement of states’ anti-abortion laws immediately after they were passed, before anyone had been charged under the law.
The TX law that allowed private parties to sue strangers for providing abortions was an attempt to get around that common legal strategy.
No, that they would wait for an actual case of discrimination by a business to deliberate
3 Likes
This case does seem to lack standing, based on how i had always seemed it defined.
I guess when you are legalizing discrimination as fast as possible from the bench, this Court will just continue to disregard legal norms.
From wiki:
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the [
constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.
3 Likes
If the business is going to open imminently then the case seems to meet that definition.
Theoretical bullshit like this normally does not pass that test.
Who was harmed? The right now has a name and a face to put on this and make their case. There is no defendant except ‘teh gayz’ as I understand it. Perhaps that’s a feature and not a bug.
It’s also interesting that she started out with a pretty normal website in the beginning: about | 303 Creative
It’s all speculation as to why she changed it and whether it’s related to the ADF getting in the mix.
1 Like
Looking at the definition Whiskey posted then no one yet, but the business owner could be imminently harmed by it.
I’ll add that I thought they normally did wait until after the harm occurred. But that’s not necessarily a logical place to draw the line. If the writing is on the wall that someone will be harmed it seems rather sadistic to wait until after they’re harmed to do something about it.
That said, I am not convinced there’s a constitutional issue here. My normal line on wedding services is that freedom of religion applies to attending the wedding ceremony.
Freedom of expression might come into play here as a web design is more detailed than a cake. I’ve said that bakers should be require to bake cakes for anyone who orders them, but they are under no obligation to sell cake toppers they don’t want to sell nor to work with the client’s cake topper if they don’t want to nor design a cake that materially different from their standard offerings (such as a custom design including a swastika - a baker should not be required to make that cake, but he should be required to sell a Nazi a cake that he’d sell to someone else.)
So I suppose with web design, freedom of expression may come into play. If that’s what the web designer is asserting, then he probably has a case.
Move along. Not much to see here. It is disappointing that an election denier is running to replace the speaker of the GA house, but it’s only to replace him (who died after winning reelection) as a representative, not as speaker. From the headline, I assumed he had illegally voted 9 times in one election, but no, in 9 separate elections. Ineligible as a felon who is ineligible until he finished his probation.
That’s pretty similar to what DeSantis is trying to prosecute several Floridians for, and in most of the Florida cases it’s clear that the voters (reasonably) thought they were eligible to vote. In GA, circumstances are different, but it’s at least possible he didn’t intentionally break the law.
1 Like
“They’re bringing pronouns into our military, they’re bringing wokeness into our military—I don’t even know what the heck is a pronoun.”
“I can tell you that I’m sick and tired of this pronoun stuff. What I want our military men and women to do is to be at war fighting.” Fighting whom? Doesn’t matter—just go to war, please. We love a good war.
No need to specify who said this.
2 Likes
I actually didn’t know, I had to google, too many choices.
1 Like
Without Googling, admitting to not knowing what a pronoun is sounds Trumpish, but could also be someone like Tucker Carlson. My guess is Trump though.
Oops, no, haha, not surprising. I probably should have guessed.
1 Like
That’s gotta be head trauma candidate from Georgia I’d guess. But could certainly understand the confusion on who might have said it from the Republican side since it sounds so much like much of their rhetoric.
1 Like