Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
 

Oh the fake case won. Shocker 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 6
Posted
Quote

"As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech," Gorsuch writes, "Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide."

Oh yeah I’m sure they’ll stick to this precedent 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I’d love to know how much the man was paid to pretend to be gay to get this to SCOTUS and who paid him

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

Not sure what is satire anymore.

Edited by JBJ
Posted (edited)

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Edited by Captainant
Posted
Quote

More from the Gorsuch opinion: A ruling for the state would create an untenable choice for Smith. "If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expresssing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports . . . and paying monetary fines."

Confused Little Girl GIF

Posted

Biden absolutely must find his nuts and start preaching about checking the unchecked Supreme Court. 

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Confused Little Girl GIF

what the everlivin fuck?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

This is what using a shield as as sword looks like

  • Like 1
Posted

30 min on this one case makes me feel like loan debt isn’t going to be controversial?

Unanimous - no standing in DOE v Brown 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

They can try. The worst thing that will happen to them is that it will get smacked down on appeal.

Posted (edited)

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela/

 

Spoiler

That claim has been called into question. In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.

 

Edited by Gourmand
Posted
Just now, FartingDreamer said:

Why is there not much of a push to expand the Supreme Court?  This clearly must be done.

I mean, if you have to ask, you’re not paying attention. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, The Ace of Aces said:

100 percent businesses will now go full scorched earth and refuse to work with Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. Some will refuse Blacks entry and cite that decision. 

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Appellate courts can't determine facts at all, so never.  Manufactured cases are actually quite common and aren't illegal or even really considered deceptive in the court.  The most famous example is probably the Montogmery bus case (Rosa Parks).  It took several runs with several people to create different situations until lawyers decided to proceed with the Rosa Parks instance.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

Currently reading this and today's decisions just fan my righteous fury

 

Hardcover Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution Book

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I read that backwards.  Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up.  The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court.  But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sorry to distract from the actual point of the thread but nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, was worth the one-term Trump presidency and all the ruin and rot it brought to the surface in this country. And that fucker could potentially win another term in 2024. 

As a general rule I don't typically wish death on individuals, but I can be persuaded to make an exception here. 

Posted

from NYT:

Quote

 

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 10:59 a.m. ET10 minutes ago
10 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear

White House officials say President Biden will denounce the court ruling in remarks later today and will “announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers.” It is unclear what those new actions will be, but there are some other — more limited — programs that could help some borrowers.

 

Quote

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 11:00 a.m. ET9 minutes ago
9 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear
The White House will also “be making it crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get to them,” according to White House officials.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Second case - 6-3 with the usuals. HEROES act does not authorize debt forgiveness 

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

Congress.

Actually governing.

And then, actually governing with the best interests of the people in mind.

haha-agamemnon.gif

 

That will never, ever, ever, ever happen again.  Not as long as the GQP exists.

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 4
Posted

A major business should implement a policy that it will no longer provide services to white men based upon religious belief. Americans need to see the disastrous consequences of this Court's rulings. And this Court needs to be held accountable for its shoddy reasoning. Packing the Court should be job #1, #2, and #3 for Democrats. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
Quote

Chief Justice Roberts put an addendum on his majority opinion telling the public not to interpret Justice Kagan’s dissent as a sign of discord at the Supreme Court. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” he wrote, adding that reasonable minds could disagree about the majority’s reasoning but that “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”

Fucking lulz John

  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

You mean the Congress where one body is controlled by right wing insurrectionists? LOL

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Also, I'm just flummoxed how this Court continually just blows by the usual analysis applied when restricting rights in other contexts. Compelling government interest anyone?  

Posted

More from the Kagan dissent: In her view, the text of the HEROES Act makes clear that the plan is legal. "The statute provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules. What the Secretary did fits comfortably within that delegation. But the Court forbids him to proceed. As in other cases, the rules of the game change when Congress enacts broad delegations allowing agencies to take substantial regulatory measures."

 

Kagan accuses her colleagues in the majority of usurping the role of Congress and the executive branch in making policy. Congress authorized the plan, the Biden administration adopted it, and Biden "would have been accountable for its success or failure. But this Court today decides that some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides, because (so says the Court) that assistance is too significant."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

This is so dumb my brain hurts. Courts on their own (or sua sponte if you want the magic Latin phrase) can make determinations on jurisdiction at every appellate level 

Edited by Pig Bellmont
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is so dumb my brain hurts. Counts on their own (or sua sponte if you want the magic Latin phrase) can make determinations on jurisdiction at every appellate level 

Yes, a manufactured controversy destroys standing.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

They're trying to get the message out as fast as possible

Quote

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia joined a chorus of Democrats attacking the court’s student loan ruling. “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the targeted student loan forgiveness program hurts millions of Americans and our economy,” he said in a statement. “I remain committed to easing the burden of student debt, lowering the costs of higher education and expanding access to post-secondary education.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I read that backwards.  Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up.  The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court.  But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

Wow, thanks for the answer but that's fucking crazy. If a lower court finds the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, and the supreme court affirms it, then all courts must abide by it? 



×
×
  • Create New...