Reply With Quote
Trump lost 2020 election
Moore v. Harper
the potential reach of independent state legislature theory has just been drastically shortened.
Trump lost 2020 election
Thomas is a clown
Getting super stalked? Don't look to the Supreme Court. They back the stalker. 7-2.
US Supreme Court sides with man who sent female musician barrage of unwanted messages (yahoo.com)
Stalker Counterman had a history of making violent threats to women and was on supervised release from one such federal conviction during the two years he continuously messaged Whalen. He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of stalking Whalen and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison as he pursued his First Amendment appeal.
Counterman, citing mental illness and delusions, argued that his statements were never intended to be threatening and were thus protected speech.
The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker's subjective intent to intimidate. Rather, Counterman was convicted based on a showing that his messages would cause a "reasonable person" serious distress - known as an "objective" legal standard.
Counterman contended that prosecutors should be required to prove a speaker's specific intent to threaten before stripping offending speech of its cons utionally protected status.
Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her over a two-year span beginning in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. Whalen has said Counterman sent thousands of messages to her personal and public Facebook accounts, some of which suggested he had seen her in public.
She never responded to Counterman during this time and blocked his Facebook account at least four times, prompting him to continue messaging her from other platforms or through new Facebook accounts he created.
Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was that you in the white Jeep?" and "You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you." Others used expletives.
Whalen said the messages eventually left her paralyzed with fear and anxiety, causing her to cancel shows and turn down career opportunities, and leading her to apply for a concealed handgun permit and sleep with a light on.
Whalen in 2016 discussed her concern about the messages with a family member, who alerted law enforcement. Colorado prosecutors later that year charged Counterman with stalking, which state law defines in part as communication that "would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress."
looks like the complaint behind the 303 Creative suit was fabricated.
Stewart was married to a woman and never submitted an email request to 303 Creative.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1739...-supreme-courtLong before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.
This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
Maybe it should not be a surprise, though, that this strange fake “request” popped up in a case in which the plaintiff’s main argument rested on the claim that someday, out there, a same-sex couple would want her to design a wedding website. The closest thing Smith had to an actual inquiry—the nonwedding of Stewart and Mike—arrived within 24 hours of her having filed a suit in which said inquiry would be potentially a helpful piece of supporting evidence
The Roberts court's originalism is a sham. Using the 14th Amendment as the foundation of colorblindness underscores it.
the 2 in 7-2 were barrett and thomas so you can damn be sure this was a process argument not a case for stalking. Colorado prosecutors just didn't do their job and lost for it
303 Creative doesn't do weddings, has never designed a website for a wedding, and -- it would appear -- has never received a request to make a website for a wedding.
It's hard to see what the dispute is, or how this isn't an advisory opinion.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-30-2023 at 09:41 AM.
sounds about right
Pay off your student loans , no free lunch!!
*PPP loans trending online*
it's far past time to expand the court or limit its jurisdiction.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...nk-it-00043863In practice, so few instances exist of jurisdictional stripping that [the] meaning and scope [of the exceptions clause] are open to debate. But it has happened. In the late 1860s, federal authorities jailed William McCardle, a newspaper editor, under provisions of the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act. McCardle sued for his freedom, citing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. Congress denied the justices jurisdiction in the matter, and the court conceded that it was powerless to act.
Writing several decades later, Justice Felix Frankfurter, an FDR appointee, noted that “Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.” Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom President Richard Nixon placed on the bench, agreed, writing that Congress could pass simple legislation “limiting or prohibiting judicial review of its directives.”
Liberals going to want to stack the Supreme Court now
They ruled in favor of person wanting Sunday off, against loan forgiveness, graphic artist refusing same sex cakes, no consideration for race to attend college
Forgot this one Supreme Court justices rule state lawmakers do not have exclusive control over elections in key decision
The 6-3 ruling could prevent judges from overriding state rules like some did in 2020
total Calvinball, working backwards from desired results to decide cases without any proper dispute, for plaintiffs who shouldn't have standing.
they just found out that the guy the supposedly called 303 was a straight married to a female male who had no idea that he was the one listed on the complaint, you know probably because he's a straight male. The original complainant should be in prison for perjury
fifywHaTaBoUt *PPP loans trending online*
That's not how your side does it.
Except for ppp loans, bailouts and bankruptcy that your side uses to literally not do that
Take the machines out he wins
Nancy husband invest in them and cheats
Government shut down business
Thus they were helping them out
No one forced people to rack up school bills except donkeys kept saying they would wipe the student loans out so they racked up the bills
Now they get to pay the pipper
In both the 303 Creative case and the student loan forgiveness cases. But they'll probably rediscover it in cases that aren't Republican priorities.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
