Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does the plaintiff even have standing? Who injured her?
Alito also characterized opposition to gay marriage as honorable, but somehpw denigrated sincerely held personal beliefs against interracial marriage.
SCOTUS trying to thread the needle on bigotry is on brand.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does the plaintiff even have standing? Who injured her?
More specifically, how was the limitation on advisory opinions overcome here? Seems like there's neither a case nor a controversy.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/219us346
There is a case because Colorado has a law in the books that prohibits discrimination based on race, origin, sexual preference or gender. A few States do actually.
This case predates the resolution of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the SCOTUS solved on narrow procedural grounds, not resolving whether the law was uncons utional.
SCOTUS5 Catholics ruling with Popery ethics, morals, misogyny not the US Cons ution.
The Supreme Court Could Chop Away at Anti-Discrimination Law Based on Literally Nothing
The high court's conservatives could alter protections for LGBTQ citizens based on
a case whose plaintiff describes
an entirely hypothetical injury.
Though the case raises a familiar cons utional question—
one that the high court has touched on in the recent past—it does so in
this instance while being almost entirely unmoored from any factual record or dispute.
https://newrepublic.com/article/169316/supreme-court-303-creative-elenis
Obviously, the plaintiff presented a case created by well-financed Christian fascists who hate LGBT, similar to the
C-U case
America is so ed and un able. and almost no Americans have the slightest clue.
If we're being honest here, First Amendment does give you the right to be as racist and bigot as you want to be, tbh...
Another loss for Trash and big lie strategy
SCOTUS refuses to take care against Dominion
Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.
Here's a less polemical live blog
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=133564
Link to audio of the oral arguments:
https://www.c-span.org/supremeCourt/
so ISLT wins 5-4 w/o ACB
It's really up to Roberts, chasing legacy of "his" court that he no longer controls
so, how was the plaintiff hurt by this law?
The plaintiff argument is that the law, which is in effect, infringes on his/her First Amendment right.
aka weaponized "freedom of expression" of Christian faith.
aka, "we intend to discriminate, persecute, free to express our hate, against people we don't like"
That's what Christ would do
"
- At least three of the six conservative justices — John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — seemed to be looking for a ruling that would preserve the courts’ role in the process, The NY Times reported."
-- Axios email.
looks like ISLT is more in danger than I expected. great
^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...
What? who or what would otherwise "percuss" me?
re·per·cus·sion
noun
1.
an unintended consequence occurring some time after an event or action, especially an unwelcome one.
"the move would have grave repercussions for the entire region"
Similar: consequence result effect outcome byproduct reverberation
GOP lawyer made a disastrous mistake during Supreme Court hearing
a crucial "mistake" made by the Republican-aligned lawyer on his "Democracy Docket" media platform that might cost them the case.
the Republican-aligned counsel went too far, and
failed to read the room in the face of skepticism from even conservative justices.
how broadly the Moore lawyer would argue the case.
And he went very broad,
arguing from the start that
'there can’t be a limit on the [state legislature’s] power' to regulate congressional elections 'because it’s a federal function.'
In practice, that would mean that state courts could not strike down state laws pertaining to federal elections for violating their state cons utions," wrote Elias.
"In retrospect, this decision by the Moore lawyer
to take an absolutist position against state court review may well prove to be a mistake."
https://www.rawstory.com/moore-v-harper-supreme-court-case/
To discriminate against gays, denying them accommodation because that's a core Christian belief.
Got it.
Never said it's not a double edged sword. Heck, it protected the Klan and their bigotry as well.
seems like the injury here is totally hypothetical, but I guess that's where we are, SCOTUS bending over backwards to accommodate a Christian bigot who hasn't been prevented from doing anything yet.
The injury is that the law is in the books. If you deem a law uncons utional, you can sue and have it reviewed by the courts. This stuff happens all the time.
so I can deem a law uncons utional and have the Supreme Court vet any law I don't like?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)