Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

How do these people have standing to sue? They've never been sanctioned by Colorado for refusing a same sex wedding website 

Preemptive challenges to purported constitutional violations are a thing.  There are a lot of specifics and details, but preemptive challenges are not unheard of.

There IS a rational and sane way to consider these cases.  I think it is a correct outcome to argue that "genuinely creative, speech activities" cannot be compelled for ANY reason.  A painter who takes commissions -- does portraits and stuff -- can't be compelled to produce the portrait I request, Adolf Hitler and Elon Mush shooting Obama.  Or Obama shooting Trump.  Or two chicks kissing.  Or, frankly, ANYTHING.  Maybe I want him to paint a still-life with pears, but he hates pears and won't paint them.  True speech/expression should not be compelled, for any reason.  That's outside any "public accommodation" doctrine, and should have a reasonable test with some parameters.

Instead, this will all turn into the sanctity of religious beliefs, and how you don't even have to offer true public accommodation if it offends ANY deeply held religious belief.  The plaintiff argues that it can't be used to go after interracial marriages, for example, because "race is different."  But I call bullshit.  Religious belief is religious belief, and if you think racial discrimination isn't squarely in the SCOTUS's sights, you haven't read Thomas's dissents.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, safe sex said:

What the fucking fuck is he talking about?

Best I could tell was he was trying to argue that allowing a black Santa to refuse to provide services to KKK hood-wearing patrons would somehow constitute discrimination tantamount to the LGBTQ discrimination at issue here, given only white people would be impacted (this being the point of his sarcastic comment about black children dressing up in KKK outfits) - somehow overlooking the fact that the discrimination would really be a function of those white people being members of the fucking Klan (i.e., violent bigots that hate said Santa), not their whiteness. 

One of the great legal minds of our time, y'all ...

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gap03 said:

Best I could tell was he was trying to argue that allowing a black Santa to refuse to provide services to KKK hood-wearing patrons would somehow constitute discrimination tantamount to the LGBTQ discrimination at issue here, given only white people would be impacted (this being the point of his sarcastic comment about black children dressing up in KKK outfits) - somehow overlooking the fact that the discrimination would really be a function of those white people being members of the fucking Klan (i.e., violent bigots that hate said Santa), not their whiteness. 

One of the great legal minds of our time, y'all ...

What is the problem?  Justice Roberts already told you that you are too stupid to understand them and they are above criticism.  

Edited by Nivek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Anyone listening to arguments in Moore this morning? Any lawyers wanna explain what’s going on? 

"Fuck yo vote, libtard." That my legal analysis that just about sums it up.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


non - lawyer, we are fucked 

All 50 state AGs be like "no this is stupid, overrule this shit"

Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito: hold my beer

Kavanaugh: I LIKE BEER! 

 

Part of me sees this one as Roberts sides with the liberals and Kavanaugh goes along with him, but JR will pick 1 or 2 decisions to justify his legacy against the god awful other decisions he's made.  Handmaids Tale will do whatever, but it'll be either 6-3 or 5-4 shooting it down. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Argument summaries I read said Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts were skeptical. Gorsuch seemed really for the independent state legislature doctrine. I don’t see 5 votes though 

Yeah, feels a lot like 6-3 against it.  The triumvirate of stupid will rule for it though (Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Your point?  Kavanaugh's behavior in the job interview would have excluded him from a job at Mcdonald's but for some reason, that is acceptable for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court.  Restated, burger flippers are held to a higher code of conduct than a lawyer and a justice.     

Also, you cannot protest them.  You cannot criticize them.  Their corruption is a state secret.  They get to pick and choose what they hear and when they hear it and lie to the public about their corruption.   

Hunter Biden's laptop is worth investigating, but not conflicts of interest that have financial influence over a supreme court justice.  We are a banana republic.  

My point is it is fucking stupid, so I completely agree with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

My point is it is fucking stupid, so I completely agree with you.  

Fair, I am feeling cynical.   The Supreme Court has been corrupted by right-wingers who hate the will of the people and do everything in their power to move us toward an oligarchy-supported authoritarian regime. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...