Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 75
  1. #26
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    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.


  2. #27
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does the plaintiff even have standing? Who injured her?


  3. #28
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    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

  4. #29
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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.

  5. #30
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    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.

    SCOTUS5 Catholics ruling with Popery ethics, morals, misogyny not the US Cons ution.

  6. #31
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    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.




  7. #32
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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...

  8. #33
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    Another loss for Trash and big lie strategy

    SCOTUS refuses to take care against Dominion

  9. #34
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.


  10. #35
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    Here's a less polemical live blog

    https://electionlawblog.org/?p=133564

  11. #36
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    Link to audio of the oral arguments:

    https://www.c-span.org/supremeCourt/

  12. #37
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.

    so ISLT wins 5-4 w/o ACB

    It's really up to Roberts, chasing legacy of "his" court that he no longer controls

  13. #38
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    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.
    so, how was the plaintiff hurt by this law?

  14. #39
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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.

  15. #40
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    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

  16. #41
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    "
    • 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

  17. #42
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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
    ^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...

  18. #43
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    ^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...
    What? who or what would otherwise "percuss" me?

  19. #44
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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

  20. #45
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    96,631
    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/

  21. #46
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    The plaintiff argument is that the law, which is in effect, infringes on his/her First Amendment right.
    To discriminate against gays, denying them accommodation because that's a core Christian belief.

    Got it.

  22. #47
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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.

  23. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    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.

  24. #49
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    151,017
    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.

  25. #50
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    84,080
    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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •