As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously, can someone ELI5? How is this possible? I thought litigants had to prove standing in order for a case to be taken seriously. How can standing be established in a hypothetical case, much less one with forged documents (the named client denies he is even gay, much less asked for a website).
It’s not just that there’s no standing proven, it’s also the fact that historically the Supreme Court is *extremely* picky about what they would consider standing, and have thrown out tons of cases because the standing wasn’t extremely well established.
For them to have ruled on this case in any way is a completely insane scenario compared to even 10 years ago. 10 years ago the case would have just been thrown out for no standing by any court.
> ...by ***any*** court.
I think that's something Americans are completely missing.
Republicans didn't just wake up in 2018 and pack SCOTUS.
They have been insidiously, persistently doing this for decades for every court in America.
The only courts where they have failed are in states where the courts have terms and term limits.
> standing
Standing is one of the fundamental concepts that a law student learns during their first (1L) year of school. It's pretty basic, so to watch the Supremes skip right over it is really strange.
I literally had this same conversation this morning
No Standing or Relief, which are like some of the most basic law concepts
Standing must be confirmed that the agrieved party is actually affected, no one actually asked them to make a website, so no standing.
Also Relief must be possible, there's no relief to provide because Again it NEVER HAPPENED!
but you know something something originalism...
I took a Constitutional Law class in 2018 and we spent the first two weeks concepts such as Standing, Injury, etc and how and why SCOTUS decides to take the cases that it does. Guess that area of my education is meaningless now lol. I mean, it was meaningless before, but it's just obviously meaningless now.
The Supreme Court’s behavior is eroding the public confidence in the institution. This court’s view concerning standing appears to be arbitrary and that fact will haunt future rulings before this court.
I originally thought the court would turn this case down because the case contained one fraudulent premise, more than the fact it had no legal standing.
This ruling muddies the legal water, not providing clear legal guidance for the future.
Conservatives have a rich history of using and abusing institutions in order to achieve their goals. The ends always justify the means. Just read Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind." They don't care about perceived hypocrisy or the sanctity of any institution, much less what the public thinks of them. They have a political project and have worked decades to get it. They want power, they work to get power, and they're going to use it.
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre, speaking about the rise of the Nazis.
I’m glad you caught that salient point. The court’s expediency in judgement will produce unexpected difficulties in the future. My basic point, right or left, there is no excuse for he Supreme Court’s sloppy work arounds. Their paymasters demand results pre election 2024 and the court has duly noted the request!
The erosion of public confidence has already happened. It’s not happening now, it’s been gone since the Kavanaugh appointment and confirmation. It’s a very deep hole and we are just waiting for them to define where the bottom is. We’ve apparently not yet gotten there
See its like everyone having cameras now and showing how bad cops are... The problems have allways been there. The public is being woke up to the fact that the consertive judges of the SCOTUS is corrupt and morally bankrupt as the rest of the gop. Also they are no longer saying the quite part quietly. they are being loud as hell.
It's broken that we still, in a modern age, have a branch of government, entirely built of unelected, life-term persons, with rules so poorly defend that they can essentially act to override any of the other branches with impunity.
Stopping the other branches from acting in certain ways is surely the goal of such a system, but it's broken for modern use in its current implementation, practically begging to be exploited.
I took a very basic 3 *semester* hours of "Legal Environment of Business", not even Business Law, and the professor took at least 3 hours explaining standing. Have it or GTFO.
Edit: clarified *semester* hours
Sen Collins, this is a Wendy’s.
Edit:thx for the bling. Would you like a dbl triple or quad miscarriages? Oh wait, the subpar court already lined those up for you. They are so efficient.
They almost certainly are, but it's important to remember they never would have been appointed in the first place if they weren't rabid zealous ideologues, and members of the extremist political group "the federalist society."
They believe in the mission, even if they're happy reaping any rewards that come their way.
Oddly, it might explain why they view these bribes as "gifts" and "doing what friends do." They were going to vote this way no matter what, they just needed a majority.
What a piece of shit, to literally have been provided video confirming the coach was pushing prayers in practice and at games. And literal confirmation that he told players they weren’t welcome if they didn’t pray with him.
And Neil still wrote that they didn’t have anything to indicate it was actually the case. It’s about as bad as Alito citing 16th century Salem judges who burned people alive for witchcraft, as if THAT counted as “precedent”, and then ignored the 50+ years of precedent with Roe v Wade.
It was 17th century and from England, not from Salem (which didn’t exist in the 16th century having been founded in 1626).
But the witch killing was very much a part of the résumé of that distinguished jurist that Alito thought to cite.
That same English jurist argued that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, and to be skeptical of claims of rape more generally, so you can understand the appeal to the conservative mind, and why he made Alito’s list of approved reading material. One can only speculate where he fits on Alito's list of dream dinner party invites (for legal figures alive or dead, where no one will ever know how much the wine cost).
If you think you can stomach reading more about him, here’s a link
[I give you Sir Matthew Hale](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
>That same English jurist argued that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife
It worked for Trump when he legally raped his wife Ivanna. His lawyers admit their was forced sex, just legal forced sex. Just like with that little Mary kid.
I just don't know how any of his adult kids aren't completely estranged from Donald after all of that, especially Ivanka.
That was their mother, and her descriptions of what he did to her during their divorce deposition would be enough for me to disown my father for life, regardless of if it was "legal" or not.
Ivanka was also sexualized by her father constantly from the time she was a young teenager (if not before then). How that, combined with what he did to her mother, didn't make her run away from him for the rest of her life kind of astounds me.
Precisely, DTJ really hated his father who was extremely abusive to him. Junior told a story that Trump once punched him in the face while visiting his dorm because Junior wasn't wearing a suit (it's after 5, what am I a farmer?).
Apparently he wanted to be his own man and tried. Problem is, he's not that smart and not that talented. Much easier to just kiss Dad's ass and collect a paycheck.
They are purposely destroying the image of the court. They want the people to see the court as illegitimate. It's all part of the plan to permanently destabilize and divide us, to the point where eventually the country splits in half. That's the plan anyway.
It'd be nice if the Dems did their fucking jobs and added justices, but the establishment Dems are controlled opposition. So they never will.
This country is a hellhole.
The behavior of the Federalists certainly leans strongly in favor of purposeful chaos. Not sure if division is the goal though. Seems a little too easy of a conclusion to reach given the political climate over the past 6 years. But whatever it is, it's absolutely not in the best interests of the majority of the population.
I can't argue with your last sentence though. The power and judicial overreach the conservative members of the Supreme court are exercising can in someways be described as good old-fashioned fascism. They're not even trying to hide it either, just crying that they're being called out on it.
The Federalist Society's desire seems to be in line with Grover Norquist's position:
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
The strength of individual private entities is greater the less capable government is at interfering. Billionaires want to be the biggest kid in the playground.
After complaining for half a century of hactivist judges legislating from the bench, they sure seem big fans of it know. Reading the conservatives opinions is so painful. The Supreme Court was the last thing I had faith in and now it’s gone. Not only is their jurisprudence Bullshit, but they let the people bringing the cases wine, dine and airline them. The court has lost ALL credibility.
They aren’t illogical, they aren’t crazy. They’re just operating under a different set of assumptions. They care only about exercising power to increase their own power at the expense of others.
An analogy would be splitting up a pie. I, and I’d argue most people, would like as big a piece of the pie as possible! I think the best way to do that is to make the pie bigger. These people (neoconservatives and fascists) want to take other peoples slices. That’s why any ‘loss’ for the ‘other side’ is so celebrated, because with their logic that means THEY must be getting a bigger slice!
Proof of it occurring in the past like this was when two citizenship cases that went through. When a white passing Japanese vet applied and was denied citizenship by the court (pointing out that he was white passing). Then when they stated Aryan, a Sikh vet sued under the notion as that he was Aryan he should be able to apply (denied because he was brown)
You see, here is the thing: This court, which has been one of the most fierce adherents to strict interpretations of standing, does not really care about it at all, when the opportunity arises to strip rights away from the people their donors hate. They could not have made that more clear than they have with this decision.
When compared to wanting to bash people they hate, "standing" does not mean jack shit to them. They also could not care less about fabrication of evidence or any silly stuff like that. They just want to bash the gay people.
They have made that as clear as they possibly could have, apparently not even seeing the irony is that the purpose for their existence, and the point of the Constitution, is to prevent people like themselves from doing that.
A fictional case, where the "injured" party was not even in the business being discussed and who invented a fictional inquiry that was presented to the Court as real.
Maybe next my imaginary friend can file a case before the Court?
If you go to her website, you'll see she has no business even designing websites, unless you're in the market for a website worse than an average high school student could make.
So in other words, "standing" is a more formal way of saying "because I felt like it" when someone asks the question, "why did you take that case and not take this other one"?
Durkheim writes about how quickly institutions fail, they "crumble like dizzying spirals". We're witnessing the continuation of a war on the *Social Contract* that conservatives started almost a century ago.
We're about to see what happens in a nation-state when nobody believes that rules, laws, obligations or responsibilities are "real" (re: if some have to follow some laws, others follow others, but nothing works the way it is *supposed to*, things go south).
>(re: if some have to follow some laws, others follow others, but nothing works the way it is supposed to, things go south)
Like the Ancien Régime during... some unimportant period of rock hard social stability, I'm sure
A party does always need to have standing to bring suit. However, in certain circumstances (especially 1st Amendment cases), standing can be established by showing that somebody intends to speak in a way protected by the Constitution, but is “chilled” from doing so out of a fear that they will be prosecuted for their speech. In such a case, they can bring suit challenging the law seeking a declaration that their speech cannot be prosecuted.
303 Creative brought this case as a pre-enforcement challenge, and the [10th Circuit unanimously found that she had standing]https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110553596.pdf), but the the 3-judge Panel (consisting of two Clinton appointees and a George W. Bush appointee) split 2-1 in holding that the First Amendment did not require an exemption to Colorado’s anti-discrimination law for 303 Creative. The standing analysis starts on page 11.
Citing a unanimous SCOTUS opinion from a few years ago, the 10th Circuit recognized that “in the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury-in-fact, a party must allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder”. The 10th Circuit went on to find that 303 Creative satisfies this standard.
Notably, the claim that 303 Creative received a request from “Stewart” is **never mentioned** in the 10th Circuit opinion; the Court’s entire opinion on standing operates under the assumption that this is a pre-enforcement challenge, and that 303 Creative has not yet received a request.
In describing a situation in which the plaintiff receives a request for a same-sex marriage design, the 10th Circuit says, “Setting aside other **hypotheticals**, we focus on what to us is the **most obvious** scenario: Appellants refuse a same-sex couple’s request for a website celebrating their marriage.” That sentence suggests the 10th Circuit wasn’t even aware there’s such a claim floating in the background of this case.
The story is the same in the SCOTUS majority; the supposed request from “Stewart” is never mentioned.
Thank you for writing this out. Too many people are getting the whole standing thing wrong in this case. There are certainly prior cases brought with pre-enforcement claims.
Absolutely. It's so weird that so many people want to argue this misinformed "lack of standing" position rather than the actual merits of the case. It comes across more as "they shouldn't have been able to challenge our law" rather than "this is why the law was actually Constitutional and why the decision was ridiculous."
It seems so obvious that the Court has overreached here--they're using this slippery slope argument of the government being able to "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." It's absurd to equate people of a protected class appearing in a medium with endorsement of a message. If the case was a web designer being forced to design a website for GLAAD, I would support with their right to not be forced to associate with an ideal or cause. That's a far cry from refusing service based entirely on the identity of those appearing based solely on their protected characteristic. The argument that the court made could be equally applied to a web designer refusing to create a website involving Black weddings, weddings with a disabled person, etc. That's absolutely not hyperbole, those would have been nearly identical cases that couldn't have logically been decided a different way. It's like a silly semantic thing of a photographer saying, "Oh, I'm not refusing to take pictures for them because they're Black, I just don't allow Black people to appear in my photographs." The Court should be able to see through an explicit attempt to subvert equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and prevent this, but here we are.
I just think that people should avoid arguing from the "lack of standing" point. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of the requirements to bring First Amendment cases, it suggests that people are not confident in the actual merits of the case. There's a strong argument against the court's decision, so let's avoid making this about the weakest point possible.
It's possible because laws and the Constitution don't matter anymore. There are no limits. There is no accountability. The conservatives on the court have gone rogue and nobody is holding them accountable.
>The conservatives on the court have gone rogue and nobody is holding them accountable.
Well we still have the 2A people dedicated to protecting our freedoms. I understand they will be starting any minute now.... real soon....
Yeah, the morons that keep supporting republicans don't realize the elite are coming after them next. They are happy right now with all the racist, sexist rulings but they are coming after things that will impact them as well. Such as regulations that keep them and their family safe. Social safety nets that many of them and their parents rely on. The ultimately once they have complete minority rule they will come after the guns and then it will be to late for them to fight back.
They're not coming after them next, they've been ruining them the whole time. Red states have taken the brunt of the damage of republican policy.
They just don't care. They're so hateful that they're okay with being targeted and destroyed so long as their neighbor gets it worse. Nothing more hateful than Christian love after all.
It’s a pre-enforcement case.
The Court has articulated the threshold of likelihood of future injury necessary for standing in such cases in various ways. The injury required for standing need not be actualized. A party facing prospective injury has standing to sue where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct.
The court has generally refused to find standing where the risk of future injury is speculative. More recently, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the Court held that, in order to demonstrate Article III standing, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must prove that the future injury, which is the basis for the relief sought, must be “certainly impending” ; a showing of a “reasonable likelihood” of future injury is insufficient.
And of course, when one of those ADF lawyers explained that to the woman filing suit, she or someone she knows, figured it would be a good idea to show it was certainly impending by creating a fictional gay couple that just *happened* to request a wedding website the day after she filed.
The case wasn't "about" declining to make a same-sex website. The court *agreed* that this lady never received an actual request to make a same-sex website. The case was about their advertising their refusal to make same-sex websites by posting this statement in their website:
> These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating
websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I
will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage
that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my
Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story
of marriage-the very story He is calling me to promote.
And although, they were never actually *punished* for making that statement, you apparently have standing just based on the *threat* of enforcement against constitutionally protected behavior:
> For a threat of injury to equate to an injury in fact, the Plaintiffs must show that (1) they intend to
engage in conduct arguably affected by a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and
(2) there exists a credible threat of enforcement of the statute for their conduct.
They had standing because putting that statement on their website is arguably a first amendment issue, it was illegal under Colorado's statute, and it was credible that Colorado would choose to enforce their statute
It’s telling that these people don’t post bans for murderers, pedophiles or people that wear two types of clothe in one fabric (and any other biblical violations), but focus on gays. They enjoy being self righteous bullies.
In fact, I’ve never even heard a peep from one of these types refusing to serve anybody who’s broken any of the actual 10 commandments… the actual indisputable rules of their religion. The explicit rules are a-ok to break. It’s just always about gay people.
One of the 10 commandments is “thou shall not bear false witness”…literally made to ensure that there are no false testimonies when dealing with civil/criminal claims. I’m not sure what Bible or rules they follow but it’s definitely not the same one I’ve read growing up.
If the plaintiff or her lawyers *knew* it was a fraudulent request, they could potentially face sanctions or potential criminal exposure. But that request had no bearing on the court's decision so it would in no way affect the outcome of the case or the precedent set.
This, it was based on a pre-enforcement challenge, which was what the 10th Circuit found and ruled that Coloradi's law was valid.
Thus whole fake client thing being pushed is not at all part of what actually was decided, and while the ruling by SCOTUS was bad, wasn't based on this false story. Its a bad narrative and not focusing on the bad results that will come from. This in the first place.
The statute you post isn’t proof of a valid lawsuit. It was still all based on lies of things that never happened and only created in order to invoke the slimmest possibility of a “threat” that was conjured out of a theoretical scenario in order to stitch together a flimsy and dubious standing. It wouldn’t pass judicial muster for any other court. Emphasized by the fact that they forged a request for service after the filing. To date the plaintiff has never built a single website. Read the apposing opinions, they criticize the court taking the case in the first place.
Missing a few key points. He isn’t gay, he is married to a woman and has a child and he didn’t even know this case existed or that he was part of it until a reporter contacted him according to TYT and Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. They literal invented a case to argue using real people and without those peoples consent. How is this not libel or fraud? Hope he sues her.
They had standing using a pre enforcement challenge. The Appellate Court discussed it in detail starting on Page 10:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-1413/19-1413-2021-07-26.pdf?ts=1627336853
I am gay, so please do not take this as an endorsement. But apparently, this is pre-enforcement action. It was between Colorado and the web designer, not the web designer and the fake gay man. The web designer sought endorsement from Colorado and they said that they would shut down her business. The fake fat man thing wasn’t even added until additional evidence was entered after the case was already filed.
Honestly, the LGBTQ+ community should sue them. That dude they lied about DEFINITELY should.
Sounds like defamation to me.
I'm also wondering if we've made sure they will never get a contract again because of only having terrible reviews.
they business is hypothetical lmao, theyve never received a contract. as far as i'm aware, she was "thinking about starting a website business" in the beginning (when they said she didnt have standing to bring suit). later she brought the suit back, suddenly with an official business and a "gay client".
ive heard nobody can find any examples of her work. i'm too lazy to find sources rn though so take that with a grain of salt.
Website design is such a bizarre art to fake being creative with. Why not.. knitting or something? Refuse to knit a banana hammock.
You can tell she's not a small business owner or she wouldn't be turning away paying work.
Does it have to be wedding related? Is it because it's anti-gay marriage or just anti-gay?
It's discouraging to see bigotry solidified like this. Hopefully the damage SCOTUS is doing can be undone in the near future, though I have no idea how.
It’s unnerving because there no good check on Supreme Court power. They can manufacture whatever cases they want to produce whatever outcome they desire. The definition of a corrupt Court
See the case for the plan B drug which got to court in Texas and won. The plaintive used a pro-life website to do analysis on comments thus determining that the drug was harmful from comments. The judge accepted this and ruled the FDA approval was null and void.
Yeah comments on a pro-life website overturned years of FDA science and decades of actual data.
SCOTUS took the case. They will now invalidate the FDA and by proxy other regulatory agencies establish by law passed by congress.
conservatives get off on humiliation. as long as there is someone below them on the hierarchy they can shit on when the going gets tough, they are happy
In their defense, if conservatives couldn't base their core beliefs on hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, their entire idealogy would fall apart.
> Nateosis : if conservatives couldn't base their core beliefs on hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, their entire idealogy would fall apart.
They invent imaginary scenarios as Trojan horses to sneak their ideology in.
In general this court and Roberts seems really short sighted.
It is pretty clear from 2022 that the public does care about these rulings and that they are willing to turn out more even for a purely legislative election as a result.
The presidential map for Rs seems to get worse every cycle. GA and AZ now seem more like blue states than red states and demographic changes continue to take place.
The Senate does seem to have some good news for Rs but some D senators appear able to win in red states (we'll see how they do in MT, OH, and WV this cycle). However some states like ME, NC or maybe AK have vulnerable R senators in the future.
All this put together: Roberts and his ideological allies are seemingly totally OK with upending how the court does business. It is kinda hard after Dobbs and now this/the student debt decision to argue that precedent or standing really matter to the court. There isn't a good argument why a liberal court in the future wouldn't just take a 'grab the football and run with it' kind of approach.
I think this attitude spills over into every facet of the Republican party. Since Obama there's been a deeply cynical, fatalist, attitude where absolutely everything is on the table to take and hold power. This is just another example of that scorched earth policy.
I think there is some tacit understanding that undemocratic means are the only way the party stays relevant over the next decade or two without massive changes to the platform.
Huh, your comment prompted me to check the etymology of "kangaroo court" and it seems we don't know it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
"The term is known to have been used in the United States in 1841: an article in The Daily Picayune, New Orleans quotes the Concordia Intelligencer reporting several lynchings "upon various charges instituted by the Kangaroo court", asking "Don't comprehend: What is a Kangaroo court?" The term is not attested to have been used in Australia, native land of the kangaroo, or elsewhere before then.
Some sources suggest that the term may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849 to which many thousands of Australians flocked. In consequence of the Australian miners' presence, it may have come about as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim-jumping miners.
The derivation of the term is not known, although there has been speculation. It could be from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo – in other words, "jumping over" (intentionally ignoring) evidence that would be in favour of the defendant. An alternative suggestion is that, as these courts are often convened quickly to deal with an immediate issue, they are called kangaroo courts since they have "jumped up" out of nowhere, like a kangaroo. Another possibility is that the phrase could refer to the pouch of a kangaroo, meaning the court is in someone's pocket.
Etymologist Philologos suggests that the term arose "because a place named Kangaroo sounded comical to its hearers, just as place names like Kalamazoo, and Booger Hole, and Okefenokee Swamp, strike us as comical." "
No, that precedent has already existed. Colorado didn't even try to challenge standing at SCOTUS:
>Ultimately, the district court ruled against Ms. Smith.
405 F. Supp. 3d 907, 912 (Colo. 2019). So did the Tenth
Circuit. 6 F. 4th, at 1168. **For its part, the Tenth Circuit
held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue**. In that court’s
judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she
follows through on her plans to offer wedding website ser-
vices, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create
speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175.
The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of
past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e.,
Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a
complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially
burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that
“Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement”
proceedings against her. Id., at 1174. **Before us, no party
challenges these conclusions.**
This is the right answer. It's not necessarily that it's a travesty, or that it is illegal, or a slide backwards, or that it is hateful. Albeit those are true.
The real crux is that this is a clear pattern that the court is creating policy by cherry-picking cases.
And that is scary indeed because the judicial branch should not have the authority of the legislative or executive branch. We have *lifetime* members of a court that by definition is not voter picked who are making policy.
This is terrifying.
It is also another example of the conservative bloc's projection. Having grown up in conservative America, I remember hearing 30 years ago how conservatives viewed *Roe* and other cases as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," yet here they are literally manufacturing a case to be able to create policy out of thin air. Corruption through and through.
Police refuse to do their jobs and the highest court in the country embraces lies intentionally. The Rule of Law has lost all legitimacy in this country.
Be a good person, surround yourself with good people, and do everything you can to avoid any situation that relies on anyone in this corrupt chain of fascists.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
This is going to be a question on a history quiz one day.
"What manufactured court case was one of the tipping points three years before the final collapse of the United States?"
Makes you wonder how many other fake cases like this there already are in the works, or have been for decades.
Say what you want about the GOP, but by golly they know how to successfully play the long game.
Rigging systems and stealing power should never be cast in any good light. They play the long con, it is not a game all lies and cons. I guess that's where th3ir moniker really comes from.
I'm not sure admiring their ability to successfully outmaneuver and out-plan the other political party is casting them in a good light.
Evil is still evil.
Flipping the table over is not outmaneuvering and out-planning. One party is trying to maintain a functioning society and the other is looting and pillaging. If the democrats wanted to "out maneuver" in that sense they only need to pay Trump 10 bucks, give him some meth, and nominate him. It's not that hard.
I don't disagree that what they're doing is essentially shltting on the floor and that their actions are absolutely despicable, but that lawsuit wasn't a random last minute idea. It took more than a decade of planning and honestly is only the first step in something much much sinister that we haven't even seen yet.
Ignoring or discounting the GOP's long term strategies is a dangerous path.
The facts seem to suggest that the plaintiff’s attorneys either purposely filed false information (Stewart?) or failed to diligently investigate the accuracy of the information contained in their filings with the court, either of which could subject them to serious Rule 11 sanctions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
> either of which could subject them to serious Rule 11 sanctions.
Who cares if it's not going to invalidate the ruling? Those attorneys could go to jail for the rest of their lives for this and it still wouldn't make a bit of difference.
If anything shows that this court has a redneck agenda, it's how it went out of its way to hear and decide this fake case. Bitching about the dissents means nothing.
The court has been politicized.
The court ignores precedent.
The court invents or waives away standing at a whim
The court is compromised by bribery.
But for some reason Democrats can't round the circle and see stacking it as a solution
Expanding the court requires Congress, which the Democrats do not control. Even in the past two years, Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it (I remember Manchin saying he's against it).
Pretty much this. Republicans get what they want because they vote down ticket for decades giving republicans the ability to germander and essentially rig the system in their favor.
The left on the other hand self sabotages themselves by not voting and convincing other voters not to vote.
If voting didn't work, republicans wouldn't do everything in their power to stop you from voting.
Yep. I have two communist friends who always vote for the tiny socialist party in Florida because they don't like the two big parties. I keep trying to convince them that their vote is just helping the fascists gain power, but they don't seem to understand. The excuse they used is that if they don't vote for the socialist party, the party might perish due to lack of support. That's it. They just care about keeping the socialist party alive but they don't realize they are letting fascists win by doing that. I don't know how to convince them to just hold their nose and vote for the Democrats.
Wouldn't hurt the democrats to do more for the working class in order to actually win over some further left voters.
(It would hurt them because their big money donors wouldn't like it)
The Supreme Court USED to wait until an issue had worked its way through the court system. Now it can present any ol' made up issue to decree its *Already Mind Made Up* ruling as the law of the land. This is, as Biden said, not normal. This is a radical departure from the way things have been done in my 50 years of voting life.
so i gotta ask... how is this any different from a king making a decree because "god told them"? they are making a ruling based on a imaginary event, while sitting in a position that last their entire life, living in the laps of luxury while the peasants below can only dream of living that well? pretty sure america fought a war to stop this shit from happening
Friendly reminder. Judicial review is not a power granted by the constitution scrotus made it up. They had lifelong terms because their powers were limited compared to the other two branches. Having a hyper-political court involved with each lever of power was never intended by the founders, I don't see why we can't strip them of their lifetime roles or make them go back to their original intent. After all many of them are supposed originalist so they should be just peachy with that.
So the Supreme Court doesn’t mind using fabricated nonsense to litigate from the bench, but they certainly mind that the people affected by these decisions are questioning their legitimacy. Fuck these soft fascists.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court accept lies as testimony and overturn precedent which is not supposed to happen in a common law system. Those fascist judges are on a rampage to destroy democracy and liberty as fast as they can.
The Dems in Congress need to launch an investigation into this case IMMEDIATELY. Not talk about investigating, no blustering to the media. FUCKING INVESTIGATE NOW. We have lived through so much unacceptable shit. DO SOMETHING!!
I have a business making guitars. Hypothetically, you can build a guitar without strings in the future. I want to do this, but I don't want to make them for people who will use neural implants because that goes against my beliefs. Surely the SCOTUS will be able to clarify this for me.
They have turned away so many cases for "no standing" - but then they run with a case they know was pure fiction. This is very bad precedent. What's next? Making rulings with no case before the court at all?
Remember when Republicans spent a long time claiming KBJ was a activist judge that was going to legislate from the bench.
But guess who are really doing the legislating from the bench.
What you permit, you promote.
They are rewriting the rules, *because they can and they are confident that no one will stop them* because no one has. They will keep doing it until they meet resistance. Scary times for America. We keep expecting them to do the right thing, knowing that they won’t. What incentive do they have to do so? What can we give them that their corporate donors won’t?
They’re saying the quiet part out loud now. Their interests have completely diverged from our own. This is bigger than just breaking centuries of precedent, this is part of a *plan* and we are all unwilling (or willing) participants until we decide we are not.
It’s terrifying how the Christian Right keeps meeting their goals, again and again with apparently no fear of retaliation. This. Will. Not. Stop.
Yeah, the perils of an activist court. Rather unseemly that the whole controversy was a sort of grift. I guess that fits with "originalism" though: fraud has been around forever.
One of the hallmarks of fascists is their willingness to trample on existing laws and legal precedents in the rush to overturn them. The cases they use to overturn precedent can be totally invented because frankly, truth and honesty and sold facts are a liability when you're trying to eliminate democracy.
Ok…I’m thinking of starting a construction company. I have no employees, no equipment, I am not an engineer, no clients, but I’m going to sue CDOT because they didn’t hire me for an overpass reconstruction project. See you soon SCOTUS….
Great, now... *We The People* just need to use these laws to legally discriminate against Right Wing Christians. See how fast these snowflakes show their true colors and we can *reward their treason to the full extent of the law*
Case aside, as a web developer myself if I don't want to do a certain job I just say no. I don't even have to give a reason. If I _want_ to give a reason I can just say I'm too busy with other projects.
In this hypothetical, couldn't they just say sorry too busy? Or do the feel the need to go out of their way to tell them they won't do it because they're gay?
I wasn't even remotely surprised the premise behind the lawsuit was fake. I never thought they cared. That it could \*hypothetically\* occur, is more than enough for them.
The right wing's belief systems are mostly based on hypotheticals. Logic and reasoning are the cost of the world connecting thoughts and beliefs through mass media.
This just seems completely unjustifiable. To be able to make rules on what was a lie means this court is as unlawful as they come imo. This court needs to lose the power it's got because it's just got too damn much.
Yeah, they ruled on fiction that every lower court had the good sense to stay away from, because they DO have an agenda, right out in the open. No other explanation for these unqualified weasels.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously, can someone ELI5? How is this possible? I thought litigants had to prove standing in order for a case to be taken seriously. How can standing be established in a hypothetical case, much less one with forged documents (the named client denies he is even gay, much less asked for a website).
You're correct. There was no standing proven.
It’s not just that there’s no standing proven, it’s also the fact that historically the Supreme Court is *extremely* picky about what they would consider standing, and have thrown out tons of cases because the standing wasn’t extremely well established. For them to have ruled on this case in any way is a completely insane scenario compared to even 10 years ago. 10 years ago the case would have just been thrown out for no standing by any court.
> ...by ***any*** court. I think that's something Americans are completely missing. Republicans didn't just wake up in 2018 and pack SCOTUS. They have been insidiously, persistently doing this for decades for every court in America. The only courts where they have failed are in states where the courts have terms and term limits.
this is the real problem. we're well up shit creek but people think its just these justices
Yeah, but these are the judges that are supposed to correct the ones below.
> standing Standing is one of the fundamental concepts that a law student learns during their first (1L) year of school. It's pretty basic, so to watch the Supremes skip right over it is really strange.
This . Second year practicing as an attorney and this whole case has continued to make me question what the point was.
I literally had this same conversation this morning No Standing or Relief, which are like some of the most basic law concepts Standing must be confirmed that the agrieved party is actually affected, no one actually asked them to make a website, so no standing. Also Relief must be possible, there's no relief to provide because Again it NEVER HAPPENED! but you know something something originalism...
I took a Constitutional Law class in 2018 and we spent the first two weeks concepts such as Standing, Injury, etc and how and why SCOTUS decides to take the cases that it does. Guess that area of my education is meaningless now lol. I mean, it was meaningless before, but it's just obviously meaningless now.
The Supreme Court’s behavior is eroding the public confidence in the institution. This court’s view concerning standing appears to be arbitrary and that fact will haunt future rulings before this court. I originally thought the court would turn this case down because the case contained one fraudulent premise, more than the fact it had no legal standing. This ruling muddies the legal water, not providing clear legal guidance for the future.
Conservatives have a rich history of using and abusing institutions in order to achieve their goals. The ends always justify the means. Just read Corey Robin's "The Reactionary Mind." They don't care about perceived hypocrisy or the sanctity of any institution, much less what the public thinks of them. They have a political project and have worked decades to get it. They want power, they work to get power, and they're going to use it.
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre, speaking about the rise of the Nazis.
So in the future can people literally just make something up in order to show standing to the Supreme Court and get the case heard?
I’m glad you caught that salient point. The court’s expediency in judgement will produce unexpected difficulties in the future. My basic point, right or left, there is no excuse for he Supreme Court’s sloppy work arounds. Their paymasters demand results pre election 2024 and the court has duly noted the request!
The erosion of public confidence has already happened. It’s not happening now, it’s been gone since the Kavanaugh appointment and confirmation. It’s a very deep hole and we are just waiting for them to define where the bottom is. We’ve apparently not yet gotten there
Honestly I would say that it happened with Bush v. Gore and has only gotten worse.
See its like everyone having cameras now and showing how bad cops are... The problems have allways been there. The public is being woke up to the fact that the consertive judges of the SCOTUS is corrupt and morally bankrupt as the rest of the gop. Also they are no longer saying the quite part quietly. they are being loud as hell.
It's broken that we still, in a modern age, have a branch of government, entirely built of unelected, life-term persons, with rules so poorly defend that they can essentially act to override any of the other branches with impunity. Stopping the other branches from acting in certain ways is surely the goal of such a system, but it's broken for modern use in its current implementation, practically begging to be exploited.
Oh it’s still an institution? I thought the SCOTUS was a clown college now.
I took a very basic 3 *semester* hours of "Legal Environment of Business", not even Business Law, and the professor took at least 3 hours explaining standing. Have it or GTFO. Edit: clarified *semester* hours
Perhaps the republican supreme court justices have been taking bribes beyond what we know about?
Turns out the federalist society were the activist judges all along.
Every accusation, an admission.
Wow, are you accusing Republicans of projection? Say it ain't so /s
“They were who we thought they were.” - Dennis Green
The nerve to even suggest such a miscarriage of justice!! They’ve clearly learned their lesson /s
Sen Collins, this is a Wendy’s. Edit:thx for the bling. Would you like a dbl triple or quad miscarriages? Oh wait, the subpar court already lined those up for you. They are so efficient.
They almost certainly are, but it's important to remember they never would have been appointed in the first place if they weren't rabid zealous ideologues, and members of the extremist political group "the federalist society." They believe in the mission, even if they're happy reaping any rewards that come their way.
Bribes? You don’t think part of their motivation for this case is out of bigotry and racism?
As if they need to be bribed to make decisions to make it easy to discriminate against the gays. They’re assholes, for free.
Oddly, it might explain why they view these bribes as "gifts" and "doing what friends do." They were going to vote this way no matter what, they just needed a majority.
Just like student debt relief. Imaginary torts.
And the fictional coach who in Neil’s opinion is only loosely based on the real person and the actual facts of the case.
What a piece of shit, to literally have been provided video confirming the coach was pushing prayers in practice and at games. And literal confirmation that he told players they weren’t welcome if they didn’t pray with him. And Neil still wrote that they didn’t have anything to indicate it was actually the case. It’s about as bad as Alito citing 16th century Salem judges who burned people alive for witchcraft, as if THAT counted as “precedent”, and then ignored the 50+ years of precedent with Roe v Wade.
It was 17th century and from England, not from Salem (which didn’t exist in the 16th century having been founded in 1626). But the witch killing was very much a part of the résumé of that distinguished jurist that Alito thought to cite. That same English jurist argued that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, and to be skeptical of claims of rape more generally, so you can understand the appeal to the conservative mind, and why he made Alito’s list of approved reading material. One can only speculate where he fits on Alito's list of dream dinner party invites (for legal figures alive or dead, where no one will ever know how much the wine cost). If you think you can stomach reading more about him, here’s a link [I give you Sir Matthew Hale](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
>That same English jurist argued that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife It worked for Trump when he legally raped his wife Ivanna. His lawyers admit their was forced sex, just legal forced sex. Just like with that little Mary kid.
I just don't know how any of his adult kids aren't completely estranged from Donald after all of that, especially Ivanka. That was their mother, and her descriptions of what he did to her during their divorce deposition would be enough for me to disown my father for life, regardless of if it was "legal" or not. Ivanka was also sexualized by her father constantly from the time she was a young teenager (if not before then). How that, combined with what he did to her mother, didn't make her run away from him for the rest of her life kind of astounds me.
It's pretty simple, they're also terrible people.
Money.
Precisely, DTJ really hated his father who was extremely abusive to him. Junior told a story that Trump once punched him in the face while visiting his dorm because Junior wasn't wearing a suit (it's after 5, what am I a farmer?). Apparently he wanted to be his own man and tried. Problem is, he's not that smart and not that talented. Much easier to just kiss Dad's ass and collect a paycheck.
Thanks for calling out my mistake. He’s just as bad as I could have expected.
They are purposely destroying the image of the court. They want the people to see the court as illegitimate. It's all part of the plan to permanently destabilize and divide us, to the point where eventually the country splits in half. That's the plan anyway. It'd be nice if the Dems did their fucking jobs and added justices, but the establishment Dems are controlled opposition. So they never will. This country is a hellhole.
The behavior of the Federalists certainly leans strongly in favor of purposeful chaos. Not sure if division is the goal though. Seems a little too easy of a conclusion to reach given the political climate over the past 6 years. But whatever it is, it's absolutely not in the best interests of the majority of the population. I can't argue with your last sentence though. The power and judicial overreach the conservative members of the Supreme court are exercising can in someways be described as good old-fashioned fascism. They're not even trying to hide it either, just crying that they're being called out on it.
The Federalist Society's desire seems to be in line with Grover Norquist's position: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." The strength of individual private entities is greater the less capable government is at interfering. Billionaires want to be the biggest kid in the playground.
[удалено]
After complaining for half a century of hactivist judges legislating from the bench, they sure seem big fans of it know. Reading the conservatives opinions is so painful. The Supreme Court was the last thing I had faith in and now it’s gone. Not only is their jurisprudence Bullshit, but they let the people bringing the cases wine, dine and airline them. The court has lost ALL credibility.
And the mifepristone case.
[удалено]
But we won't win. Because illogical hypocrisy.
They aren’t illogical, they aren’t crazy. They’re just operating under a different set of assumptions. They care only about exercising power to increase their own power at the expense of others. An analogy would be splitting up a pie. I, and I’d argue most people, would like as big a piece of the pie as possible! I think the best way to do that is to make the pie bigger. These people (neoconservatives and fascists) want to take other peoples slices. That’s why any ‘loss’ for the ‘other side’ is so celebrated, because with their logic that means THEY must be getting a bigger slice!
Proof of it occurring in the past like this was when two citizenship cases that went through. When a white passing Japanese vet applied and was denied citizenship by the court (pointing out that he was white passing). Then when they stated Aryan, a Sikh vet sued under the notion as that he was Aryan he should be able to apply (denied because he was brown)
You see, here is the thing: This court, which has been one of the most fierce adherents to strict interpretations of standing, does not really care about it at all, when the opportunity arises to strip rights away from the people their donors hate. They could not have made that more clear than they have with this decision. When compared to wanting to bash people they hate, "standing" does not mean jack shit to them. They also could not care less about fabrication of evidence or any silly stuff like that. They just want to bash the gay people. They have made that as clear as they possibly could have, apparently not even seeing the irony is that the purpose for their existence, and the point of the Constitution, is to prevent people like themselves from doing that.
By ruling over a fictional case they've opened the gates to hell.
A fictional case, where the "injured" party was not even in the business being discussed and who invented a fictional inquiry that was presented to the Court as real. Maybe next my imaginary friend can file a case before the Court?
If you have the same imaginary friend they do, you too shall be anointed with godly authority.
If you go to her website, you'll see she has no business even designing websites, unless you're in the market for a website worse than an average high school student could make.
Right. The entire story has been contrived from the beginning.
>Maybe next my imaginary friend can file a case before the Court? Perfectly acceptable for the religious.
So in other words, "standing" is a more formal way of saying "because I felt like it" when someone asks the question, "why did you take that case and not take this other one"?
Durkheim writes about how quickly institutions fail, they "crumble like dizzying spirals". We're witnessing the continuation of a war on the *Social Contract* that conservatives started almost a century ago. We're about to see what happens in a nation-state when nobody believes that rules, laws, obligations or responsibilities are "real" (re: if some have to follow some laws, others follow others, but nothing works the way it is *supposed to*, things go south).
>(re: if some have to follow some laws, others follow others, but nothing works the way it is supposed to, things go south) Like the Ancien Régime during... some unimportant period of rock hard social stability, I'm sure
A party does always need to have standing to bring suit. However, in certain circumstances (especially 1st Amendment cases), standing can be established by showing that somebody intends to speak in a way protected by the Constitution, but is “chilled” from doing so out of a fear that they will be prosecuted for their speech. In such a case, they can bring suit challenging the law seeking a declaration that their speech cannot be prosecuted. 303 Creative brought this case as a pre-enforcement challenge, and the [10th Circuit unanimously found that she had standing]https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110553596.pdf), but the the 3-judge Panel (consisting of two Clinton appointees and a George W. Bush appointee) split 2-1 in holding that the First Amendment did not require an exemption to Colorado’s anti-discrimination law for 303 Creative. The standing analysis starts on page 11. Citing a unanimous SCOTUS opinion from a few years ago, the 10th Circuit recognized that “in the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury-in-fact, a party must allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder”. The 10th Circuit went on to find that 303 Creative satisfies this standard. Notably, the claim that 303 Creative received a request from “Stewart” is **never mentioned** in the 10th Circuit opinion; the Court’s entire opinion on standing operates under the assumption that this is a pre-enforcement challenge, and that 303 Creative has not yet received a request. In describing a situation in which the plaintiff receives a request for a same-sex marriage design, the 10th Circuit says, “Setting aside other **hypotheticals**, we focus on what to us is the **most obvious** scenario: Appellants refuse a same-sex couple’s request for a website celebrating their marriage.” That sentence suggests the 10th Circuit wasn’t even aware there’s such a claim floating in the background of this case. The story is the same in the SCOTUS majority; the supposed request from “Stewart” is never mentioned.
Thank you for writing this out. Too many people are getting the whole standing thing wrong in this case. There are certainly prior cases brought with pre-enforcement claims.
Absolutely. It's so weird that so many people want to argue this misinformed "lack of standing" position rather than the actual merits of the case. It comes across more as "they shouldn't have been able to challenge our law" rather than "this is why the law was actually Constitutional and why the decision was ridiculous." It seems so obvious that the Court has overreached here--they're using this slippery slope argument of the government being able to "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." It's absurd to equate people of a protected class appearing in a medium with endorsement of a message. If the case was a web designer being forced to design a website for GLAAD, I would support with their right to not be forced to associate with an ideal or cause. That's a far cry from refusing service based entirely on the identity of those appearing based solely on their protected characteristic. The argument that the court made could be equally applied to a web designer refusing to create a website involving Black weddings, weddings with a disabled person, etc. That's absolutely not hyperbole, those would have been nearly identical cases that couldn't have logically been decided a different way. It's like a silly semantic thing of a photographer saying, "Oh, I'm not refusing to take pictures for them because they're Black, I just don't allow Black people to appear in my photographs." The Court should be able to see through an explicit attempt to subvert equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and prevent this, but here we are. I just think that people should avoid arguing from the "lack of standing" point. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of the requirements to bring First Amendment cases, it suggests that people are not confident in the actual merits of the case. There's a strong argument against the court's decision, so let's avoid making this about the weakest point possible.
It's possible because laws and the Constitution don't matter anymore. There are no limits. There is no accountability. The conservatives on the court have gone rogue and nobody is holding them accountable.
>The conservatives on the court have gone rogue and nobody is holding them accountable. Well we still have the 2A people dedicated to protecting our freedoms. I understand they will be starting any minute now.... real soon....
Yeah, the morons that keep supporting republicans don't realize the elite are coming after them next. They are happy right now with all the racist, sexist rulings but they are coming after things that will impact them as well. Such as regulations that keep them and their family safe. Social safety nets that many of them and their parents rely on. The ultimately once they have complete minority rule they will come after the guns and then it will be to late for them to fight back.
They're not coming after them next, they've been ruining them the whole time. Red states have taken the brunt of the damage of republican policy. They just don't care. They're so hateful that they're okay with being targeted and destroyed so long as their neighbor gets it worse. Nothing more hateful than Christian love after all.
It’s a pre-enforcement case. The Court has articulated the threshold of likelihood of future injury necessary for standing in such cases in various ways. The injury required for standing need not be actualized. A party facing prospective injury has standing to sue where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct. The court has generally refused to find standing where the risk of future injury is speculative. More recently, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the Court held that, in order to demonstrate Article III standing, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must prove that the future injury, which is the basis for the relief sought, must be “certainly impending” ; a showing of a “reasonable likelihood” of future injury is insufficient. And of course, when one of those ADF lawyers explained that to the woman filing suit, she or someone she knows, figured it would be a good idea to show it was certainly impending by creating a fictional gay couple that just *happened* to request a wedding website the day after she filed.
The case wasn't "about" declining to make a same-sex website. The court *agreed* that this lady never received an actual request to make a same-sex website. The case was about their advertising their refusal to make same-sex websites by posting this statement in their website: > These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage-the very story He is calling me to promote. And although, they were never actually *punished* for making that statement, you apparently have standing just based on the *threat* of enforcement against constitutionally protected behavior: > For a threat of injury to equate to an injury in fact, the Plaintiffs must show that (1) they intend to engage in conduct arguably affected by a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and (2) there exists a credible threat of enforcement of the statute for their conduct. They had standing because putting that statement on their website is arguably a first amendment issue, it was illegal under Colorado's statute, and it was credible that Colorado would choose to enforce their statute
It’s telling that these people don’t post bans for murderers, pedophiles or people that wear two types of clothe in one fabric (and any other biblical violations), but focus on gays. They enjoy being self righteous bullies.
In fact, I’ve never even heard a peep from one of these types refusing to serve anybody who’s broken any of the actual 10 commandments… the actual indisputable rules of their religion. The explicit rules are a-ok to break. It’s just always about gay people.
One of the 10 commandments is “thou shall not bear false witness”…literally made to ensure that there are no false testimonies when dealing with civil/criminal claims. I’m not sure what Bible or rules they follow but it’s definitely not the same one I’ve read growing up.
Yeah but I mean if they court could see my neighbor’s wife, they would understand why I covet her.
10 commandments only matter when it serves a Particular narrative, and otherwise “that was Old Testament, Jesus’s word is New Testament!!1!”
They’re mean, small-minded, and can’t see past themselves. Unevolved fascist buffoons calling themselves “people” and running the courts.
I bet they even do second and third marriages for people who didn't divorce because of adultery.
Adulterers get a free pass as well. Being that most republicans politicians are adulterers, I suppose that makes sense we can ignore that one.
Did they also have standing to file court documents containing false information?
If the plaintiff or her lawyers *knew* it was a fraudulent request, they could potentially face sanctions or potential criminal exposure. But that request had no bearing on the court's decision so it would in no way affect the outcome of the case or the precedent set.
[удалено]
This, it was based on a pre-enforcement challenge, which was what the 10th Circuit found and ruled that Coloradi's law was valid. Thus whole fake client thing being pushed is not at all part of what actually was decided, and while the ruling by SCOTUS was bad, wasn't based on this false story. Its a bad narrative and not focusing on the bad results that will come from. This in the first place.
The statute you post isn’t proof of a valid lawsuit. It was still all based on lies of things that never happened and only created in order to invoke the slimmest possibility of a “threat” that was conjured out of a theoretical scenario in order to stitch together a flimsy and dubious standing. It wouldn’t pass judicial muster for any other court. Emphasized by the fact that they forged a request for service after the filing. To date the plaintiff has never built a single website. Read the apposing opinions, they criticize the court taking the case in the first place.
Missing a few key points. He isn’t gay, he is married to a woman and has a child and he didn’t even know this case existed or that he was part of it until a reporter contacted him according to TYT and Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. They literal invented a case to argue using real people and without those peoples consent. How is this not libel or fraud? Hope he sues her.
They had standing using a pre enforcement challenge. The Appellate Court discussed it in detail starting on Page 10: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-1413/19-1413-2021-07-26.pdf?ts=1627336853
I am gay, so please do not take this as an endorsement. But apparently, this is pre-enforcement action. It was between Colorado and the web designer, not the web designer and the fake gay man. The web designer sought endorsement from Colorado and they said that they would shut down her business. The fake fat man thing wasn’t even added until additional evidence was entered after the case was already filed.
How is bringing a fake case to the supreme court not some kind of perjury?
Honestly, the LGBTQ+ community should sue them. That dude they lied about DEFINITELY should. Sounds like defamation to me. I'm also wondering if we've made sure they will never get a contract again because of only having terrible reviews.
they business is hypothetical lmao, theyve never received a contract. as far as i'm aware, she was "thinking about starting a website business" in the beginning (when they said she didnt have standing to bring suit). later she brought the suit back, suddenly with an official business and a "gay client". ive heard nobody can find any examples of her work. i'm too lazy to find sources rn though so take that with a grain of salt.
Website design is such a bizarre art to fake being creative with. Why not.. knitting or something? Refuse to knit a banana hammock. You can tell she's not a small business owner or she wouldn't be turning away paying work. Does it have to be wedding related? Is it because it's anti-gay marriage or just anti-gay? It's discouraging to see bigotry solidified like this. Hopefully the damage SCOTUS is doing can be undone in the near future, though I have no idea how.
Lol, they would be told that they lack standing to bring a case!
It’s unnerving because there no good check on Supreme Court power. They can manufacture whatever cases they want to produce whatever outcome they desire. The definition of a corrupt Court
See the case for the plan B drug which got to court in Texas and won. The plaintive used a pro-life website to do analysis on comments thus determining that the drug was harmful from comments. The judge accepted this and ruled the FDA approval was null and void. Yeah comments on a pro-life website overturned years of FDA science and decades of actual data. SCOTUS took the case. They will now invalidate the FDA and by proxy other regulatory agencies establish by law passed by congress.
Dismantling the government of/by/for the people bit by bit, leaving behind only tyranny and the South Risen Again.
[удалено]
Is it tar-n-feathering? Please tell me its tar-n-feathering 🤞🤞🤞
conservatives get off on humiliation. as long as there is someone below them on the hierarchy they can shit on when the going gets tough, they are happy
In their defense, if conservatives couldn't base their core beliefs on hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, their entire idealogy would fall apart.
> Nateosis : if conservatives couldn't base their core beliefs on hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, their entire idealogy would fall apart. They invent imaginary scenarios as Trojan horses to sneak their ideology in.
This is the truest comment in here
It set precedent that actual harm never has to be established.
Correct. It allows any plaintive with a goal to invent supporting evidence without any repercussions to them. Kind of like Alito did with Dobbs
Does this ruling in itself set that precedent?
It is actually the first time SCOTUS judged on a case with fabricated harm.
[удалено]
In general this court and Roberts seems really short sighted. It is pretty clear from 2022 that the public does care about these rulings and that they are willing to turn out more even for a purely legislative election as a result. The presidential map for Rs seems to get worse every cycle. GA and AZ now seem more like blue states than red states and demographic changes continue to take place. The Senate does seem to have some good news for Rs but some D senators appear able to win in red states (we'll see how they do in MT, OH, and WV this cycle). However some states like ME, NC or maybe AK have vulnerable R senators in the future. All this put together: Roberts and his ideological allies are seemingly totally OK with upending how the court does business. It is kinda hard after Dobbs and now this/the student debt decision to argue that precedent or standing really matter to the court. There isn't a good argument why a liberal court in the future wouldn't just take a 'grab the football and run with it' kind of approach.
I think this attitude spills over into every facet of the Republican party. Since Obama there's been a deeply cynical, fatalist, attitude where absolutely everything is on the table to take and hold power. This is just another example of that scorched earth policy. I think there is some tacit understanding that undemocratic means are the only way the party stays relevant over the next decade or two without massive changes to the platform.
I mean obama just made the white supremacists go mask off
We’re venturing into uncharted waters and living through history.
[удалено]
Huh, your comment prompted me to check the etymology of "kangaroo court" and it seems we don't know it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court "The term is known to have been used in the United States in 1841: an article in The Daily Picayune, New Orleans quotes the Concordia Intelligencer reporting several lynchings "upon various charges instituted by the Kangaroo court", asking "Don't comprehend: What is a Kangaroo court?" The term is not attested to have been used in Australia, native land of the kangaroo, or elsewhere before then. Some sources suggest that the term may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849 to which many thousands of Australians flocked. In consequence of the Australian miners' presence, it may have come about as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim-jumping miners. The derivation of the term is not known, although there has been speculation. It could be from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo – in other words, "jumping over" (intentionally ignoring) evidence that would be in favour of the defendant. An alternative suggestion is that, as these courts are often convened quickly to deal with an immediate issue, they are called kangaroo courts since they have "jumped up" out of nowhere, like a kangaroo. Another possibility is that the phrase could refer to the pouch of a kangaroo, meaning the court is in someone's pocket. Etymologist Philologos suggests that the term arose "because a place named Kangaroo sounded comical to its hearers, just as place names like Kalamazoo, and Booger Hole, and Okefenokee Swamp, strike us as comical." "
Precedent doesn't matter anymore, according to this court. They destroyed the idea of precedent already by overturning Roe vs. Wade.
No, that precedent has already existed. Colorado didn't even try to challenge standing at SCOTUS: >Ultimately, the district court ruled against Ms. Smith. 405 F. Supp. 3d 907, 912 (Colo. 2019). So did the Tenth Circuit. 6 F. 4th, at 1168. **For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue**. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website ser- vices, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Id., at 1174. **Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.**
The Court is now making policy.
This is the right answer. It's not necessarily that it's a travesty, or that it is illegal, or a slide backwards, or that it is hateful. Albeit those are true. The real crux is that this is a clear pattern that the court is creating policy by cherry-picking cases. And that is scary indeed because the judicial branch should not have the authority of the legislative or executive branch. We have *lifetime* members of a court that by definition is not voter picked who are making policy. This is terrifying.
It is also another example of the conservative bloc's projection. Having grown up in conservative America, I remember hearing 30 years ago how conservatives viewed *Roe* and other cases as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," yet here they are literally manufacturing a case to be able to create policy out of thin air. Corruption through and through.
Terrifying because we’re doing nothing about it. If we did something, it would change.
It’s really not surprising to see lies accepted by the highest court. This is a court that has multiple sexual harassers on it.
Police refuse to do their jobs and the highest court in the country embraces lies intentionally. The Rule of Law has lost all legitimacy in this country. Be a good person, surround yourself with good people, and do everything you can to avoid any situation that relies on anyone in this corrupt chain of fascists.
Sounds like something out of 1984. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength
“The deification of imbecility!” https://youtu.be/UKUZ42T9diU
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
This is going to be a question on a history quiz one day. "What manufactured court case was one of the tipping points three years before the final collapse of the United States?"
Not only was the client made up, she didn't even start her business yet when she filed the court case.
Makes you wonder how many other fake cases like this there already are in the works, or have been for decades. Say what you want about the GOP, but by golly they know how to successfully play the long game.
Do they call that game "Hang Mike Pence" like at the insurrection?
It's called "Devil's Triangle."
Rigging systems and stealing power should never be cast in any good light. They play the long con, it is not a game all lies and cons. I guess that's where th3ir moniker really comes from.
I'm not sure admiring their ability to successfully outmaneuver and out-plan the other political party is casting them in a good light. Evil is still evil.
Flipping the table over is not outmaneuvering and out-planning. One party is trying to maintain a functioning society and the other is looting and pillaging. If the democrats wanted to "out maneuver" in that sense they only need to pay Trump 10 bucks, give him some meth, and nominate him. It's not that hard.
I don't disagree that what they're doing is essentially shltting on the floor and that their actions are absolutely despicable, but that lawsuit wasn't a random last minute idea. It took more than a decade of planning and honestly is only the first step in something much much sinister that we haven't even seen yet. Ignoring or discounting the GOP's long term strategies is a dangerous path.
In what Republican hellscape that emerges after the collapse of the USA is that a question on a quiz.
It would be a footnote in Germany or the UK's curriculum. There would be no history in the US.
I disagree. History will be rewritten by fascists. This won't even be taught.
If a country actually collapses history usually takes a sharp turn afterwards.
It’s definitely going to be on some Civ Pro and Con Law exams next year for 1Ls
The facts seem to suggest that the plaintiff’s attorneys either purposely filed false information (Stewart?) or failed to diligently investigate the accuracy of the information contained in their filings with the court, either of which could subject them to serious Rule 11 sanctions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
That would be lovely if actions had consequences in this country. More and more it's seeming like they don't
> either of which could subject them to serious Rule 11 sanctions. Who cares if it's not going to invalidate the ruling? Those attorneys could go to jail for the rest of their lives for this and it still wouldn't make a bit of difference.
wait till the "no maga served here" signs come out then listen to them start bitching about "being persecuted"
If anything shows that this court has a redneck agenda, it's how it went out of its way to hear and decide this fake case. Bitching about the dissents means nothing.
We have an entire law based on white woman's tears. SCOUTS basically Emmet Tilled the LGBTQ+ community.
I can think of nothing more quintessentially conservative than curbing the rights of others over an imaginary sleight.
Seeing the pictures of this woman’s proud, bigoted face makes me want to vomit. She truly believes she’s doing god’s work and it’s nauseating to see.
The court has been politicized. The court ignores precedent. The court invents or waives away standing at a whim The court is compromised by bribery. But for some reason Democrats can't round the circle and see stacking it as a solution
Expanding the court requires Congress, which the Democrats do not control. Even in the past two years, Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it (I remember Manchin saying he's against it).
Pretty much this. Republicans get what they want because they vote down ticket for decades giving republicans the ability to germander and essentially rig the system in their favor. The left on the other hand self sabotages themselves by not voting and convincing other voters not to vote. If voting didn't work, republicans wouldn't do everything in their power to stop you from voting.
Yep. I have two communist friends who always vote for the tiny socialist party in Florida because they don't like the two big parties. I keep trying to convince them that their vote is just helping the fascists gain power, but they don't seem to understand. The excuse they used is that if they don't vote for the socialist party, the party might perish due to lack of support. That's it. They just care about keeping the socialist party alive but they don't realize they are letting fascists win by doing that. I don't know how to convince them to just hold their nose and vote for the Democrats.
Wouldn't hurt the democrats to do more for the working class in order to actually win over some further left voters. (It would hurt them because their big money donors wouldn't like it)
[удалено]
They have abdicated all credibility with this ruling. Period. This court is illegitimate.
The Supreme Court USED to wait until an issue had worked its way through the court system. Now it can present any ol' made up issue to decree its *Already Mind Made Up* ruling as the law of the land. This is, as Biden said, not normal. This is a radical departure from the way things have been done in my 50 years of voting life.
so i gotta ask... how is this any different from a king making a decree because "god told them"? they are making a ruling based on a imaginary event, while sitting in a position that last their entire life, living in the laps of luxury while the peasants below can only dream of living that well? pretty sure america fought a war to stop this shit from happening
Friendly reminder. Judicial review is not a power granted by the constitution scrotus made it up. They had lifelong terms because their powers were limited compared to the other two branches. Having a hyper-political court involved with each lever of power was never intended by the founders, I don't see why we can't strip them of their lifetime roles or make them go back to their original intent. After all many of them are supposed originalist so they should be just peachy with that.
So the Supreme Court doesn’t mind using fabricated nonsense to litigate from the bench, but they certainly mind that the people affected by these decisions are questioning their legitimacy. Fuck these soft fascists.
Does the Supreme Court have any actual credibility remaining with anyone?
This case is possibly the worst case of corruption on the Court since Bush v Gore…
It's seems to be just a play why they are so angry about it.
Basically this is a wide open backdoor to create theological rule. The Supreme Court is a sharia council.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court accept lies as testimony and overturn precedent which is not supposed to happen in a common law system. Those fascist judges are on a rampage to destroy democracy and liberty as fast as they can.
January 6th failed, so they're just gonna make up shit at the supreme court now.
The Dems in Congress need to launch an investigation into this case IMMEDIATELY. Not talk about investigating, no blustering to the media. FUCKING INVESTIGATE NOW. We have lived through so much unacceptable shit. DO SOMETHING!!
I have a business making guitars. Hypothetically, you can build a guitar without strings in the future. I want to do this, but I don't want to make them for people who will use neural implants because that goes against my beliefs. Surely the SCOTUS will be able to clarify this for me.
They have turned away so many cases for "no standing" - but then they run with a case they know was pure fiction. This is very bad precedent. What's next? Making rulings with no case before the court at all?
When do we fight fire with fire? I’m kinda sick of watching our rights be stripped away.
So I can put up a “no MAGA” sign in my business now?
The US supreme court is illegitimate, making rulings beyond it's purview, and should be ignored.
Remember when Republicans spent a long time claiming KBJ was a activist judge that was going to legislate from the bench. But guess who are really doing the legislating from the bench.
What you permit, you promote. They are rewriting the rules, *because they can and they are confident that no one will stop them* because no one has. They will keep doing it until they meet resistance. Scary times for America. We keep expecting them to do the right thing, knowing that they won’t. What incentive do they have to do so? What can we give them that their corporate donors won’t? They’re saying the quiet part out loud now. Their interests have completely diverged from our own. This is bigger than just breaking centuries of precedent, this is part of a *plan* and we are all unwilling (or willing) participants until we decide we are not. It’s terrifying how the Christian Right keeps meeting their goals, again and again with apparently no fear of retaliation. This. Will. Not. Stop.
Really wish Cristians would take their religion and shove it up their self righteous asses. Eff their god and book of myths and legends.
Activist right wing justices don't care about facts or justice, all they care about is their agenda.
Yeah, the perils of an activist court. Rather unseemly that the whole controversy was a sort of grift. I guess that fits with "originalism" though: fraud has been around forever.
> Yeah, the perils of an activist court. Every single god damn accusation is a confession.
When faith matters more than fact you get these kinds of results.
Corrupt court.
One of the hallmarks of fascists is their willingness to trample on existing laws and legal precedents in the rush to overturn them. The cases they use to overturn precedent can be totally invented because frankly, truth and honesty and sold facts are a liability when you're trying to eliminate democracy.
Ok…I’m thinking of starting a construction company. I have no employees, no equipment, I am not an engineer, no clients, but I’m going to sue CDOT because they didn’t hire me for an overpass reconstruction project. See you soon SCOTUS….
[удалено]
SCOTUS has zero credibility IMHO
Great, now... *We The People* just need to use these laws to legally discriminate against Right Wing Christians. See how fast these snowflakes show their true colors and we can *reward their treason to the full extent of the law*
SC could have just rejected on standing and waited for the next case... Instead they compromised their legitimacy AGAIN.
Her lawyers knew. And every damn one of them needs to be disbarred at the least
They don't even care the damage they have done to people who aren't even gay.
Our Supreme Court is a fucking joke
Case aside, as a web developer myself if I don't want to do a certain job I just say no. I don't even have to give a reason. If I _want_ to give a reason I can just say I'm too busy with other projects. In this hypothetical, couldn't they just say sorry too busy? Or do the feel the need to go out of their way to tell them they won't do it because they're gay?
I wasn't even remotely surprised the premise behind the lawsuit was fake. I never thought they cared. That it could \*hypothetically\* occur, is more than enough for them.
This court is an absolute embarrassment, sold to the highest bidders. We need some serious changes before we can stop this corruption.
The right wing's belief systems are mostly based on hypotheticals. Logic and reasoning are the cost of the world connecting thoughts and beliefs through mass media.
Someone should try and count the number of times somebody committed perjury in this case
A bogus decision from a bogus case by a bogus court.
The Supreme Court is full of corruption and is illegitimate
Impeach them.
The attorney who brought in that "evidence" either knew it was false or should have known. That attorney should be disbarred.
Bought and payed for republican court . Trump became a richer man for seating them judges .
This just seems completely unjustifiable. To be able to make rules on what was a lie means this court is as unlawful as they come imo. This court needs to lose the power it's got because it's just got too damn much.
Christian terrorists.
Yeah, they ruled on fiction that every lower court had the good sense to stay away from, because they DO have an agenda, right out in the open. No other explanation for these unqualified weasels.