Biden says “this is not a normal court.” Is he right? A discussion with Jeannie Suk Gersen, Harry Litman and Sarah Isgur on the end of affirmative action and more.
And she intentionally misrepresents facts in her dissenting opinion (black babies with black doctors vs with white doctors) in the affirmative action case. Or maybe worse, can’t read/understand the research about black vs white doctors.
And don't get me started on the "Minister of Justice," the dwarfish, demented Beria wannabe who would have been an absolute disgrace had he been placed on the Court.
Three of our nine Supreme Court justices are incapable of understanding the plain language of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act. And the District and Circuit Courts are full of the same type of inept clowns.
Wrong. They are capable Bruce. Their ideology and their leftism trump their respect for the law and their views when it comes to the rule of law are all about the outcomes they desire
Or even worse, would't show up to discuss the case in private with the other 8 Justices. To me, that is the far more worrying part of Justice Jackson: she is so convinced in her views, she is unwilling to debate them with other Justices.
I'd also be curious to see a citation. The internal proceedings of SCOTUS are heavily guarded secrets. Generally, we only learn the details years after death or retirement. (The mysterious Dobbs leak was almost unprecedented)
Great. Let the debate begin. And be based on the actual law ( the Constitution and interpretations thereof in judicial decisions). Can't wait for this to happen whether on TV or at Harvard Law School. I would even settle for Dershowitz v Tribe
So I cite the specific case document that brings out the fact Justice Jackson’s unwillingness to show up and engage in debate and the best you have basically the fact she was a dissenting voice is her debate… weak.
Kidpornji Brown Jackson is proof that if Hillary had won, the CDC would have eliminated rent, we would all have 7 OSHA injections at this point, there would be no political dissent online, and most of us here would not have bank accounts right now.
WSJ had good analysis. She claims black babies survival rate is 40% better with black doctors than black babies with white doctors. The difference in reality is minuscule (0.13 % to 0.2%) . This also conveniently ignores that the majority of all babies (including black babies ) who are born in distressed situations are referred to neonatal specialists and surgeons ( the majority of whom happen to be white). The minuscule survival difference for black babies would include the high stress cases mostly handled by specialists ( mostly white).
Either she and her clerks are lying or didn’t do their homework. Unfortunately this diminishes her dissent entirely. The mainstream press, however, totally ignores this and is singing her praises. What a joke.
It's probably best for ALL the Justices to stay away from citing extremely complex medical/scientific research unless it's absolutely germane to the case. The Justice is not qualified to understand it and neither are the clerks. It can only end badly.
KBJ wanted to just say, "we need more black doctors", and wanted support for the assertion. But she went down a rabbit hole that collapsed on her.
She's trying really hard to sound smart, but too often she is exposed. SS has the same issue. Kagan must be constantly embarrassed by her progressive colleagues.
Stop criticizing our (latest) Affirmative Action justice for not knowing the difference between 0.07% and 40%. You know that progressives don't do math. Er, excuse me, maff.
This is standard CRT praxis. When you view all things through a racial lens whose entire point is to NOT determine if racism exists but RATHER to find where racism exists, all you see is racism.
Nancy, compro is not here to add to the conversation or debate anybody. He is here stir the pot. Hardly anybody responds to him because he is so toxic.
The raw numbers anre accurate but intentionally misleading. By doing an unidimensional aggregate analysis of the data instead of looking at multidimensional analysis (this is what the WSJ brings out and shows the 40% difference contradicts her overall conclusion), KBJ willingly mislead her audience to a bad conclusion.
In the 12 years under FDR, he packed the court with left wing justices. Now that was not a normal court. Apparently if the court is all left wingers as in the FDR court that is a normal court.
Yes, it’s normal and not influence-buying. The only reason the left even brought those dumb cases up was to try to delegitimize the court. There was never any substance.
Having a donor buy an education for a Supreme Court Justice isn’t trying to buy influence? Then what is it? Can’t the Justice pay for it himself? Why does he accept a gift? Where was his judgment?
If the late Ginsburg had a relationship with George Soros in which he bought her a lavish vacation wouldn’t that look bad? Improper? Like he wanted something?
Ginsberg took plenty of paid vacations as the link below documents. Couldn't she pay for them herself? Why did she accept gifts? Where was her judgment? It seems you have very selective outrage, or maybe you're just ill informed.
Timothy, if you bothered to read my post to the end you would see that I said if Ginsburg had the poor judgement to accept gifts I would not condone it. She shouldn’t have if you say she did, just like Thomas should not have. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I thought the decisions specifically stated this restriction was NOT to enable not providing service to anyone but rather, the customer couldn't demand your creativity to be used for a specific thing, i.e. gay marriage. You can't force people to speak/perform/create for something they don't agree with. That was my reading.
I believe your reading of the case is absolutely correct. The transaction in question was not a simple sale of goods or services. It was a sale of services that required the seller to invest artistically in the ideas and values of the buyer. That is a huge conceptual leap. The big surprises in this case were first, why it was not unanimous (IMHO, this case was a no-brainer), and second, why the seller had to invoke a first amendment claim of religious freedom in order to prevail. Will atheist lawyers now be required to provide services to all comers?
Remember the cake designer case. The left never rests until if forces compliance. Bends us to their will. We knew this was never about "tolerance." It was about making us bend the knee and embrace what is decreed.
Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cake shop! Remember John Roberts' weaselly parsing of the same issue by totally avoiding the main question of forced speech by focusing on the Colorado board's religious intolerant decision. The upshot was that Phillips was again attacked with another lawsuit on the same issue. It has been long past time for the Supremes to deal with the larger issue of forced speech.
That’s the rub. At the heart of “liberalism” is a hatred of successful capitalism at a small scale. The only good capitalism in their mind is one that can (and will) comply with government edicts. Otherwise some people may get too rich to rely on government handouts.
Um, no, this successful businessman is a liberal, and I like capitalism fine. Don't confuse liberals with the goofs who fire professors for showing an image of Mohammed in a college art history class after issuing three trigger warnings to students.
Note the scorn quotes in publius_x's reference to "liberalism". Actually the dominant strain of American conservatism from the 1960's through the 1990's is what is called liberalism in Australia, where the center-right party is the Liberal Party. Perhaps this should not be surprising, since conserving the American Founding is conserving the preeminently liberal event in human history.
The lot that appropriated the name are, as we've seen in their use of tech companies to censor disfavored political opinions, are not liberals, but according to Mussolini's own definition "union of state and corporate power," fascists.
And now, hopefully Jack Phillips can refile to the Supreme Court to get the harassment stopped for good. Hopefully he sues the State of Colorado for damages. Jared Polis is personally responsible for all of that. As well as his lawless Attorney General.
No matter what, lawyers of any persuasion will serve whoever they damn well please. Attorneys can act in virtually any appalling way they like to their clients and there's not a thing they can do. So that's a meaningless example.
In my experience if the lawyer does a bang-up job and wins the client thinks it was because the case was a slam dunk. If the lawyer does a bang-up job but loses the client thinks the lawyer screwed it up.
You sound like a lawyer. What about... (real example) lawyer 1 nearly dies of an illness, comes back with his marbles gone, gets replaced & he's pissed off about it. New managing partner insults the lawyer (also a partner) doing the work who resigns from case. New managing partner is literally capable of finding his butt with both hands (he did it in conversation) and could not so much as execute a filing, so he abandons the case, and just stops communicating. Then doesn't remember that he did.
Here's another. Lawyer doesn't appear at major hearing, and files later claiming he was temporarily incapable of practicing law due to a bicycle accident head injury. Opposing attorney produces video of said lawyer jumping up and down on stage, 2000 miles away when he was supposedly disabled---at a law conference. Lawyer gets censured. Client is f----d.
Really? I would not have guessed. Tell me, how does that process work?
All I have done is: Write a letter per bar directions to the partners of the firm. When there was no answer, I filed motions for relief. After withdrawal, I filed state bar complaint.
Always good fun to trash lawyers, but if you give it a moment of thought you will see that there few other types of service providers who are called upon to advocate on behalf of their clients.
Well ... no that’s not true. We are required to be zealous advocates for our clients. And everyone deserves a defense. That’s why there are public defenders appointed to the most horrific criminals imaginable. Even if it makes them die inside, those attorneys represent their clients to the best of their abilities.
Well, yeah, it IS true. What I described, happened. It happened exactly as I stated it. Feel free to contact me. I need a good contract law attorney.
What I said is true, and I will provide sworn testimony with voluminous evidence to absolutely hideous treatment of clients by multiple lawyers, and by law firms. I can show over and over that there is absolutely no recourse at all and the California State Bar is an underfunded toothless organization.
An attorney has to do something like run a bordello out of their office AND get caught with reams of evidence. The last case I know of didn't lose his license until after getting convicted following an indictment by the FBI for corruption. He was the district attorney for Del Norte County. That case included open court declaration that the DA and members of his office had smoked meth with a man on trial. Etcetera.
Seriously, if you are a good, ethical attorney, I want to meet you. Look on Linked-In. I have a PhD from UC Davis.
Wow sorry to read this. I practice in Colorado and work with kids in the child welfare system so probably can’t help you much. But I am sad to read this!!
You got it in one and these above "experts" missed the ball entirely. This was about compelled speech. This is radically different than simply refusing service.
Well that’s what the debate was about - when is it “speech” and when is it a “service”. In this case it’s clear but they spun hypotheticals when it’s not clearly one or the other.
Should it actually matter whether it's "speech" or "service" though?
An person is free to refuse a job offer because his boss would be black or Jewish or white or left-handed or deaf or Republican or female. He may be a bigot, but it would be both impractical and unethical to force people into employment relationships with others they detest.
However, an employer is not free to refuse to hire someone because they're black or Jewish or white or left-handed or deaf or Republican (maybe?) or female. The law forces him into an employment relationship with someone he may detest.
Let's say I drive up to a Motel 6 and walk into the office. I see the owner's picture on the wall; his name is Sing and he has a turban. I walk back out and go to the Days Inn next door. I may be an bigot and an idiot but not a criminal. However if you reverse that and the Indian owner sees me (A Latino man) walking up and flips on his No Vacancy sign to keep me away, he's an idiot and a criminal.
These distinctions can make some sense in terms of power dynamics. If it's the only motel for 20 miles, then the owner's refusal to serve me effectively prevents my obtaining a place to stay. In that case, the owner's freedom of association perhaps needs to take second place to my right to service. But those cases are rare. Jack Phillips customers, for example, suffered no injury and were able to get a cake made for free by a nearby baker with no problem. In that case, stomping on the business owner's freedom of association or religion can not be justified.
This case certainly does not go that far, but this case is the tip of a very large iceberg -- the Constitution (freedom of religion and association) and the Civil Rights Act (nondiscrimination) are in conflict. For 60 years we have leaned into the latter; this may be the case that starts us back the other direction.
That is the entire point. In this case, it was very evident this was simply a case of compelled speech. It was a very bad example to bring to the SCOTUS.
I wouldn't bat an eyrlid. I'd take your money, you'd get a crap website or a cake that colloapsed when you put a knife near it and tasted like cardboard. There are more ways to kill a cat than drowning it in cream. It has never mattered what the rules are if someone disagrees strongly with them; you've always got results like that. We simply don't bother to do anything like our best; as in the old joke from the Soviet Union; you pretend to pay us; we pretend to work. Pissing people off never gets anything remotely like the best out of them. Quite a lot of the culture war is that: if you want to be bloody stupid about something there is nothing to stop me being bloody stupid about something else in return.
A contrary ruling would mean is a government bureau would get to decide if the same-sex wedding website was up to par - if it was as good as the websites she created for mixed-sex marriages. And the same would be true for every other creative endeavor - if a bureaucrat said it wasn't good enough, a partly or wholly subjective call, then the creator could be found guilty of illegal discrimination. That's not a society I want to live in or one compatible with the First Amendment. This is not the same as selling groceries, shoes or auto repairs.
This makes me think of the scammers who make a practice of finishing most of the meal they ordered and then complaining to the restaurant owner that it was awful so they can get out of paying for it.
But then they'd sue you for doing a poor job on their project because you're a bigot. And it wouldn't even have to be *true* that you did a bad job because of bigotry instead of because of ineptitude. In this new culture, bigotry is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and an accusation is enough to destroy a person's life and livelihood.
I am old enough to remember Jim Crow years where blacks were not allowed to eat or shop in white restaurants or stores and movie theaters had separate seating for blacks and they could not stay in white hotels.
You all know I am not a left winger but what is the difference between Jim Crow and not serving gays?
No difference, if it’s about service. But here, it’s not. The issue is not equal service, but forced speech. Literally, being forced to express what one finds abhorrent.
Now, figuring out what exactly that means, on precedents that have, for example, made erotic dancing a form of speech….
It ain’t easy. But it’s much harder when some members of the gay lobby straight up lie about what the decision says.
It's true that there are no easy answers to tough problems, but it is a more peaceful society that ALLOWS differences between people to be freely expressed. What was adjudicated here was in America, if any person asks you to participate in actions to which you object on religious grounds, do you have the right to decline. SCOTUS found that you do have that right. This ruling is in no way comparable to Jim Crow laws. It recognizes the constitutionally protected right of every American to hold religious views and act accordingly. It does not allow discrimination against gays. Should a gay person ask for a birthday cake for example, to deny service is against the law.
This is about compelled speech. This is radically different than simply getting breakfast. Imagine a situation where you made quilts. You had off the shelf quilts and you would accept commissions to create custom quilts. Anyone can buy a custom quilt but you could refuse to accept making a quilt where a customer demanded making one glorifying animal sacrifice to the dark lord Cthulhu.
It's a fine line and it is worth having the discussion but this is not a simple case of denying service as the media makes it out to be.
Agreed. And why do we have to make the examples about polar opposites or emotional situations. Can someone go to the Boston Symphony Orchestra and say I am offended that you do not play country music and could sue or force them to play certain songs? Its about the goverment telling you what you have to do, because it decides what is right or wrong. The leftists on the podcast think their views of progressiveness should rule peoples behaviors. The website designer knows it will be common knowleged about her beliefs - so let the free market decide her fate - not the goverment.
Good analysis. I would argue that it is about being COMPELLED to do something you CANNOT. Not don't want to, not disapprove of. CANNOT tap into the creativity required to do the job. IOW talent is not subject to performance on demand under random circumstances.
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve people of a particular class and you are either too stupid or too disingenuous to understand this easily digestible fact.
If a gay producer asked Steven Spielberg to direct a pro-Nazi movie is Spielberg within his rights to turn it down because he doesn’t want to glorify Hitler?
Congratulations! You agree with the Supreme Court!
I'm impressed with the general level of comment here, few choose to be rude. It seems the golden age of trolling is over ... but there are always holdouts.
This opinion in and of itself was easily digestible, as are most SCOTUS opinions I've read tip to tail. I used to be able to depend on the media for accurate summaries, but that hasn't been true for a while now, so slog we must. What's less digestible is understanding when "artistic expression" and "sincerely held religious views" are legitimate 1A reasons to not serve a paying customer, versus code for, "I don't cater to the likes of you people."
Because it is a creative endeavor. It is not a short order at the local diner. Creative endeavors rely on an inner talent to produce whatever the product is. If you as the source of the talent cannot be inspired to create on behalf of a client because of who you are (your deeply held beliefs), you cannot perform the service. To say that you must anyway is ludicrous.
It’s only difficult in the minds of simpletons or people which believe the news is interested in conveying enough information for people to make an informed rational opinion.
When the news openly lies by omission to push a very specific agenda, then it becomes difficult.
I suspect that almost everyone here knows perfectly well they can't trust the MSM, and yet they find the subject fraught. I myself read the SCOTUS decision on AA directly (but I haven't read the 303 decision yet). But to continue the chain of insult, simple minds find simple answers ... your ball ... or should we stop this and return to the subject itself?
I think you are incorrect, but even in the remote chance I am incorrect, simpletons as you like to call people count too. This opinion is the law of the land and every American citizen is entitled to their reaction thereto. And this is a public forum manned by a wide variety of people, not a bar meeting.
Perhaps the difference is the time we live in. As Sandra Day said, one might permit a clear violation of the Constitution in some extreme situation -- but for a limited time. Thus, the blunt instrument of AA might be used *for 25 years* and then abolished. In the same way the 'public accommodation' rules, tho IMHO repugnant to Liberty, might be the blunt instrument needed at the time to get Blacks the right to sit at lunch counters. But is that blunt instrument still needed? Honestly how many Blacks are going to be turned away from a hotel these days? How many gay couples are *really* going to find it hard to find a baker for their wedding cake? How many tradespeople, like bakers or website designers, are *really* going to be turning away business? Perhaps the time comes to deal with this issue pragmatically, not theoretically?
Here is a relevant example. A retail printing shop is owned by a black person. Should he be required to design and print for a customer a set of flyers praising the KKK?
Indeed there a many variations on the theme, are there not? The question is so vexed that I myself favor a return to Liberty -- engage in commerce as you see fit. Not ideal of course, discrimination is unfortunate -- but Liberty should prevail.
There is a great deal of difference. The decision was NOT allowing a business to discriminate against gays. The opinion upheld the Constitutionally protected right to freely hold and express your religious views. Many believe the contract of marriage to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman for the purpose of rearing children. That view is a religious one. SCOTUS upheld that Americans are guaranteed that right by the Constitution. Had a gay customer asked for a birthday cake, to say no would have constituted illegal discrimination. However, the gay customer requested a wedding cake. Because this was a same sex wedding, to ask the business to participate in the wedding would have violated the Constitutionally protected right you have in America to believe the religious precept that marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. That's what the ruling held.
Cat, I think the difference is subtle but important. An establishment such as a restaurant or hotel holds itself out to all comers. But a creative personal service is more discreet. Would I take a case to vindicate a DNC voter suppression scheme? No I would not. Nor should an artist be forced to work on a cause he or she finds offensive.
Of course a smart person simply refuses with an excuse such as they're overworked.. But I do think the Court rightly decided the case - notwithstanding it's a close call.
Agree that it's subtle but subtlety is important. Of course, nothing stops people from refusing to frequent businesses that take unpopular or bigoted stances. As some have learned to their chagrin. But the original intent of the Civil Rights Act was to stop discrimination in "place of public accommodation." And that still seems to me to be the most reasonable scope of our anti-discrimination laws.
The same argument applies to the ADA. Is it reasonable to force a small antiques shop in a mountain town that is mostly inaccessible to wheelchairs to install ramps and lifts? Shouldthey reallybe forced to change the historic layout of sloped floor & every floor with a high step? Why not allow them to do what they did in the one visit of the shop's 20 year life in an old, historic building? They lifted and helped the person manually.
Forty years ago when the ADA was passed, the tyrants forced us to build ramps. The town I live in tore up all of the city's curbs and installed concrete ramps at a huge cost.
Wouldn't have been better and cheaper to have a nationwide contest to see who could have built a better wheelchair that could negotiate curbs and single step ups? Give a large monetary reward to the inventor and subsidize the cost of the chair to those who needed them?
This is not a novel approach. It has been done before.
The basis of Jim Crow was a legal structure that clearly violates the equal protection clause and federal law. Of course there were unwritten codes to uphold segregation but that's a different beast. It really is a denial of service issues, where is the line?
the Bible and religious faith were used heavily to discredit and defeat segregation. Most modern racism and (19th century and on) was based on crackpot interpretations of Darwinism and secular concepts.
I wasn't meaning to reply to any other comments . I was just stating what I thought the opinion meant. It was a comment regarding the subject matter in the transcript. I was stating I thought the opinion was pretty clear, that's all..
"The mainstream media’s reaction has been fairly unanimous: these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. These two decisions have undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and have weakened gay rights."
Dear Lamestream Press: These two decisions have undone decades of institutional racism in which unqualified students are advanced at the expense of qualified ones on the basis of skin color alone and have curtailed government-favored groups' ability to force individuals to express messages with which they disagree. (See "The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States")
In the states where I have lived, schools with underperforming results received many thousands of dollars more per student with virtually no effect. (Whole language, anyone?) It may have been great for the teachers and administrators, but never seemed to reach the students where they were, let alone to address the issues they faced.
If effective interventions had been employed early on, there is no reason to believe that those students couldn't have caught up in good time and had the satisfaction to be earned when they applied and were admitted to competitive colleges.
Education is not a science, nor is it even a philosophy, it is more of an ad hoc idea that subjectively tries theory after theory but when they fail to help the old theory is tossed and a new one is inserted. There is no consequence for the education controlling interests. Failing schools is what we end up with, producing citizens who lack any intellectual curiosity and no ability to read or write coherently.
You never can tell from the articles one reads if the article is valid or BS. But I read a couple of articles that Asians score higher on IQ tests than non-Asians.
Depends on your Asian. This is more about East Asian cultures that take their lead from Confucian China. Do you get a lot of Nobels from Pakistan? In the West the Bible is arguably the most published book ever. In the Ummah the Koran might as well be the only book published. We needn't rely on newspaper or magazine articles. The academic reasearch is out there; the data for I.Q. tests is published. It isn't an accident that a disproportionate amount of the success of the iPhone and Intel CPU's is down to "Designed in Israel"; and the West is the Best simply because all the evidence says it is.
I think it is more likely the people in charge consider a school that produces good little communists is successful, regardless of their ability to add or read.
To be fair, Robert, most private businesses (including private schools) can reject defective material from suppliers--i.e., engineering firms can refuse to use Chinese steel to build a bridge. Public schools, conversely, are required to take all kids who live in the district, even those whose upbringings were so searingly deficient it would take years of one-on-one teaching to get the kids up to par ... if they're not already too far gone.
In other words, public schools have to build "bridges" with Chinese steel and Pakistani nuts and bolts. And we expect them to put out product that's great?
See Thomas Sowell on Black education before all this bullshit. It isn't difficult to explode this nonsense; you simply have to be able to read. You are merely exposing your (wilful?) ignorance most of the time.
Edit: Whoops! Spelt his name wrong. Sorry Thomas! I've typed it more often than my own in these spaces too. LOL!!!
My parents did same, and many parents do. It's smart and sensible to get your kids going as soon as they can mumble their first words, since so much learning happens in the first five years of life. But too many families don't bother, for a variety of reasons, and their kids are behind before first grade starts. By fifth grade, they'll never catch up. The public school teachers I know are appalled at how many of their students can't write even a basic short story . . . but can punch their smartphone keys at Olympic speed.
Historically, education involved someone with a particular skill teaching that skill to someone who did not yet have it. American schools of the "little red schoolhouse" variety succeeded in turning out generations of people who could read, write, and do arithmetic, despite those students having only the most basic of books, tools, and buildings. But teachers in those schools were required to possess the knowledge they were teaching, and if a teacher did a poor job, they could be replaced the very next term by someone else. When Laura Ingalls Wilder was teaching in late 19th century South Dakota, she had to pass an examination each year in order to qualify for a teacher certificate.
Somewhere in the process of trying to "improve" education, the system has managed to virtually destroy it instead. One has only to look at the failure of our school to teach those very most basic skills to see that.
The left defines diversity as people of different skin tones who think alike. Always remember Clarance Thomas is not diversity as he doesn't believe in the approved way. It was interesting seeing the faces of the mainstream press as they reacted to his response to Justice Jackson.
The issue is that no one, and Bari is not brave enough yet, to look at the numbers for African immigrants, middle to upper-class African American, and those who were sadly born into the cities. Do we look at the outcomes of those children whose parents care and go to charter schools against those whose parents don't care and live in places where the government is corrupt, schools are terrible, and the criminals reign with gang violence?
That is diversity in the African American community. But we don't dare say that the problem can be something other than systemic racism as this is not a search for truth but rather a political movement that wants political thought conformity. Thanks for the conversation.
I thought their responses on what schools want from diversity were very disingenuous. Perhaps these were the steelman arguments, but that’s not what we’ve all been living through.
Ahh but therein lies the rub. In the name of Unity, this president decries anyone who dare get in his way as Racists, White Supremacists, Insurrectionists, Destroyers of Democracy, and my favorite, Mega MAGA (whatever that is).
You see in the name of savings democracy, he is hell-bent on destroying it.
When you understand how many young people have lived that environment for their whole lives and are disallowed from hearing perspectives from the other side, the president's language isn't simply divisive. It is willful hate speech targeting his political enemies, and it is a form of hatred that they teach to children.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with us is a hateful extremist, kids"
That’s right. And therefore must be stopped in any way possible. Free speech is no longer the metric of value. It’s “hate speech” or “extremism” which is really just people who disagree with us.
Turns out this SCOTUS is not as radical as media portrays. Odd.
Every “controversial” decision this court has handed down I think is the right decision. Then when AOC gang comes out against the court, I know it’s the right decision.
1st of all, do we really need to spend even a second of brain time on whatever drivel comes out of the Biden administration? I mean we get it, guys, you don’t like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the constitution. You have the Senate and the Executive branch fully on your side, and the House of Representatives almost..the media, the corporations, the largest population centers in the biggest cities, and most of Western world leaders...
The Supreme Court, which decides the constitutionality of things, is in your way. You don’t like that and are using every tool of propaganda at your disposal to try and undermine it.
Looks to me like the founders were forward thinking and smarter than you. Shocker, I know. 🤦♂️
Brilliant comment. As he decried the electoral college and seeks to add states to our union and expand the Supreme Court, we are to believe he’s saving democracy. Heaven help us.
10A having to do with the rights of states and the people vs the federal government has been a political football since the Civil War thru the Covid lockdowns and mandates. SCOTUS has exhibited a certain “moral flexibility” on this one over the years depending on the makeup of the court and which player is “at bat”.
3A is an odd duck in that it deals with preventing the military from using your home as a barracks without permission. Other than certain Orange politicians living rent-free in peoples heads these days; I guess it could be stretched to include digital surveillance and data collection if you found a good lawyer willing to make that case. 3A has never been invoked.
I
Honestly, so many people have difficulty with the English language these days that it’s probably time for a new amendment that simply restates the bill of rights. Something like:
28A- “Seriously, people, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO CENSOR, CURTAIL, EDIT, BAN, GHOST, CANCEL, FUCK WITH IN ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM TO OWN ANY FIREARM OR WEAPON YOU F’ng WANT, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, FREEDOM TO GO TO CHURCH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AS WELL AS FREEDOM TO NOT TAKE DRUGS THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME NO MATTER WHAT YOUR STUPID REASON IS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WAR, The SUPER BOWL, VIRAL PANDEMICS, HEALTH SCARES, RACIAL DEMAGOGUERY, ALIEN INVASION, AND A FRIGGIN’ ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED)…SO HELP ME GOD!!!” (And maybe add a “this means you!” Sticker to the page in the Constitution on this one in case a Ketanji Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor is trying to “interpret” this through their respective racial experiences lenses. 🤦♂️) 😂
Isn't the Court's job to decide if a law is constitutional, as opposed to whether it's a good idea? The preview of the roundtable speaks to the latter, but that's not the Court's bailiwick or duty in this.
Fortunately the actual Justices (whose precise positions are available in the decisions) *do* understand their role, and for the first time in a long time, have the courage to ignore the voices screaming about “good ideas” from outside the building.
Well, about half of them do. Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and frequently Roberts fancy themselves somewhere between super-legislators and General Manager of “what’s good for Americans.”
If you listen to the podcast you will her Sarah state that this is the “least” number of cases overturned in six years. Harry is a moron. Harry! Filter brother, filter. Jeaninne ... you need “one hand”. Your constant statements of “I can see both sides.” Is frustrating. Then at the end ... “It’s complicated.” Doh ... take a stand and a position. Don’t hold yourself out as too intellectual to come to a conclusion.
Yes, the stats at the end tell the story that this court has not been convervative vs left. But the media never cares about the facts. They lie and no one calls them out.
We have been bludgeoned with the “Diversity is our strength” mantra for decades now.
I have come to believe this is massive disinformation and propaganda. This country will succeed or fail on its accomplishments, its “intellectual property,” as it were, and not on its polyglot demographics. Meritocracy, not false “affirmative action,” is what will distinguish and sustain the future growth and prosperity of our country.
The only problem with today’s Supreme Court is the justices who stray from the Constitution and impute rights where there are none, in the name of ideological principles. We seem to have a 6/3 split when it comes to understanding and applying the Constitution to decisions.
It may be "happy" but has an obsession with having everyone go to university. Which simply devalues universities. Their acceding to NATO is an example of just how dumbed down the country is becoming. Russia is rather obviously no threat to a wet paper bag.
Hmmm.... Last week I thought it was ignorance that was strength, but I must have been wrong it's diversity. But, war is still peace and freedom is still slavery, right? And we've always been at war with East Asia.
It's very telling to read the dissenting opinions, from justices specifically chosen for their race and sex, on why majority decisions are wrong because they don't support "equity". Not because they are constitutionally unsound, but because some justices believe "equity" takes precedence over anything and everything.
Leftists fundamentally don't believe in our rights or laws. They will do anything they can get away with to support "equity" and will label you an extremist bigot if you fight their badly misguided revolution.
This is absolutely not about gay people. That’s the shift, the scare tactic, the Left wants you to believe. No, it’s a free speech case. It’s about the government’s compelling a business to say - to express an opinion - that the business owner does not share. It’s about the government’s telling you that your “free speech” has to align with theirs.
Perhaps the most important thing about this case is the litigant was pro-active; they didn't wait to get run-over like the cake makers: they brought their enemies to action before they could get traction; let alone get in their face.
Anyone who denies the existence of his own granddaughter has no credibility about what kids can and can’t do. “The children belong to all of us! Except little Navy. She ain’t ours.”
Biden screeching about normalcy is hilarious. Is it "normal" to have a senile imbecile as president? Is it "normal" to shower with your daughter? Is it "normal" to preside over a family where you coddle and protect a criminal, corrupt drug addict?
In contrast, the Court's decisions were all more than "normal" - they reflected the sort of nation we want and were intended to be. A colorblind society, rewarding merit not tribalism. A Constitutional nation where Congress decides how our tax dollars are spent, not a President dispensing cash to buy votes. And a nation where a person may decide for what and for whom they will labor. Without the Court to protect us, we'd have to take up arms to restore justice and the rule of law.
He wasn't "screeching", he mumbled. The press did the screeching. The mumbling shows, I think, that Biden knew his undies were round his ankles on this.
Well, there's a reason Legacy Media is dying, and this is it. Americans are sick of them pushing their own ridiculous narratives instead of reporting on the news. Most Americans are happy with the decisions made by the supreme Court. I hope they tackle equity and woke Marxism in our institutions next.
I think the comment about compelled speech hit the mail on the head. When the law compels speech, it violates the Constitution. A paid website designer should not have a different set of standards than a musician. Both produce commercially offered works of creativity. I’ve wondered about this too - why would anyone want service of any kind from someone who dislikes you on principle? I don’t want a misogynist designing my website.
Excellent points! I’ve had this same conversation, if we will get out of the way, the market will resolve any supposed issue. If the creative person doesn’t want to provide their work to (fill in the blank) the word gets out and consumers will or will not do business with the creative person based on this. Why would I give my money to someone who is anti-me? Guessing there’s more than one web designer or cake baker available.
The creative person is going to direct the would-be customer to another who would better serve their needs, that is going to be upfront in the notice they wanted to put up. If that customer needs a website in future and the work didn't conflict with the creative person's ethics, all other things being equal where is the customer likely to place their business?
An ER doc (head of dept) I know, like most ER folks, gets attacked and screamed at by wackos regularly. A few have been shot. People have no idea. Sometimes it's a well person with them.
They're expected to always do their best. Mostly they do. Sometimes, as with Covid-19's low oxygen levels, the person is just not in their right mind. Low O2 makes them very stupid, and massive adrenalin makes them crazy. Knowing that helps, but it's still hard to get punched by someone you're trying to help.
I think it should matter how real the problem is. In the real world, customers flit from web dev to web dev. Loyalty for past performance approximates zero. Competition is international. No problem to find a web dev to do your main kampf site or porn site.
But, if you have a glioma, or a cerebral aneurysm, there is may be one guy doing that covering 3-10 counties. I know one, and he literally has a limo service so he can crash and sleep while being driven to the next surgery. If he says no, you're probably dead soon. 💀
However, mostly his patients aren't talking smack to him. They're a mess. So he usually doesn't confront it.
I don't think that is the issue. The owner of masterpiece cakes doesn't "dislike" homosexuals. He disagrees with that lifestyle and does not want to design and bake a cake celebrating gay marriage.
Me? Hell, I'd bake them all day, but that's not how he feels. It would be like trying to force me, as a retired physician, to print a "Hunter Biden for Surgeon General" poster or asking an English professor to lobby for Heels-Up Harris as Town Crier.
Whatever her actual intellect is, she seems incapable of expressing clear coherent thoughts. This is where building a career from her relationship with Willie Brown and the subsequent California crony style of Democratic political control gets you--as a candidate for all her elective offices, she remained completely unversed in retail politics, and so now utterly unable to speak contemporaneously.
That's because Harris is less authentic than an NFT purchased with Ethereum. Her persona is pure b*ll$h*t.
- She's not black. Her father is from Jamaican plantation owners. Her Brahmin mother from India is her coloration. She went to school in Canada from 13 graduating from Leonard Cohen's high school. Her busing experience? She was less than 4 years old in 1968. California kindergarten requires 5 years by Sept 1. Her father was a full professor of economics at Stanford. They did their best to shield her from the American experience.
- If Kamala Harris would just be herself, the real person (who is pretty freaking-conservative) she would probably be liked just fine, and do well. She is very smart and thinks about things. She's painted herself into a corner and lives behind a wall of bullcrap. In Australian lingo, Harris is a warden, masquerading as an inmate. (Aussies have two types, descendants of wardens from the early days, and descendants of inmates.)
Oh, the slippery slopes are too numerous to count...if you can compel me to say something I don't want to say...then, you can compel me to create something I don't want to create...then, I can be compelled to think something I don't want to think...at this point, I am no longer a free individual but merely an unwilling shill for the state...g.
“this is not a normal court.”
If you consider that the justice Biden nominated to the court can’t define what a woman is, I’d have to agree
And she intentionally misrepresents facts in her dissenting opinion (black babies with black doctors vs with white doctors) in the affirmative action case. Or maybe worse, can’t read/understand the research about black vs white doctors.
And don't get me started on the "Minister of Justice," the dwarfish, demented Beria wannabe who would have been an absolute disgrace had he been placed on the Court.
When they presented the data showing that Asians are being discriminated against, there was a lower court judge who said in his ruling paraphrase
“Oh but I thought we weren’t supposed to look at race??”
regarding the inculpatory data which looked at race.
That’s like the prosecution presenting a rape kit at trial that proves the defendant is a rapist and the defendant snaps back with
“A rape kit? Oh well look who’s touching her inappropriately now!!”
That judge is a mainstream respectable elite democrat and he is a total psychopath. Only a psychopath would make an argument like that.
Three of our nine Supreme Court justices are incapable of understanding the plain language of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act. And the District and Circuit Courts are full of the same type of inept clowns.
Wrong. They are capable Bruce. Their ideology and their leftism trump their respect for the law and their views when it comes to the rule of law are all about the outcomes they desire
Wrong again! They can’t read because they are possessed by Satan and they have those spinning hypnotized cartoon eyes.
😵💫😵💫😵💫
Answer the question, Kevin Durant.
We did dodge a bullet there. But he is bitter.
Oh, that was good...
Or even worse, would't show up to discuss the case in private with the other 8 Justices. To me, that is the far more worrying part of Justice Jackson: she is so convinced in her views, she is unwilling to debate them with other Justices.
That is what being woke means as far as I can tell - blind allegiance to the dogma.
Can you tell is the source of your statement? I haven't run into that in my readings.
Please be specific; link if you could.
I'd also be curious to see a citation. The internal proceedings of SCOTUS are heavily guarded secrets. Generally, we only learn the details years after death or retirement. (The mysterious Dobbs leak was almost unprecedented)
Great. Let the debate begin. And be based on the actual law ( the Constitution and interpretations thereof in judicial decisions). Can't wait for this to happen whether on TV or at Harvard Law School. I would even settle for Dershowitz v Tribe
The majority opinion.
The dissent does not support your argument that Jackson is unwilling to debate her colleagues...
I do note that the very existence of the dissent is a "debate" with her colleagues on the other side, so your suggestion is de facto erroneous.
So I cite the specific case document that brings out the fact Justice Jackson’s unwillingness to show up and engage in debate and the best you have basically the fact she was a dissenting voice is her debate… weak.
So uppity.
Nope. Just typical progressive ethics.
No. No one complains about about white "progressive" leftists in the same way.
Yes they do.
Sure they do. All the time. Rachel Maddow is a simple example. There are hundreds of others.
She argues with a straight pen that it is imperative to discriminate to end discrimination.
Read the dissent, please. It's an important primary document.
The shape of the pretzel she creates is an absolute marvel. And, the two other justices on her side just end up looking like bobbleheads.
keep in mind that Biden admitted he chose her because of her race. When one benefits from a policy, one may feel hard-pressed to criticize it.
Sonia is still the worst. I call her Sonia Sodomizer because that’s what it feels like when you’re reading her arguments.
Answer the question, KevinDurant.
Did you know that one of the Giuliani Pizzagate MAGA Anti-vaxxer IRS Whistleblowers is a gay Democrat who is married to a man?
😂😂
So? I'm sure he's still full of shit.....let me know when he decides to provide evidence, ok? :) See....that's how these things work.
Answer the question re: Communism and slavery in the Confederate South, Kevin Durant.
Yeh, WSJ article made her look foolish.
Didn’t even have her staff check the reference in the descent.
A race to the bottom.
Kidpornji Brown Jackson is proof that if Hillary had won, the CDC would have eliminated rent, we would all have 7 OSHA injections at this point, there would be no political dissent online, and most of us here would not have bank accounts right now.
I think people see what they want to see.
What are the correct facts, Nancy?
WSJ had good analysis. She claims black babies survival rate is 40% better with black doctors than black babies with white doctors. The difference in reality is minuscule (0.13 % to 0.2%) . This also conveniently ignores that the majority of all babies (including black babies ) who are born in distressed situations are referred to neonatal specialists and surgeons ( the majority of whom happen to be white). The minuscule survival difference for black babies would include the high stress cases mostly handled by specialists ( mostly white).
Either she and her clerks are lying or didn’t do their homework. Unfortunately this diminishes her dissent entirely. The mainstream press, however, totally ignores this and is singing her praises. What a joke.
It's probably best for ALL the Justices to stay away from citing extremely complex medical/scientific research unless it's absolutely germane to the case. The Justice is not qualified to understand it and neither are the clerks. It can only end badly.
KBJ wanted to just say, "we need more black doctors", and wanted support for the assertion. But she went down a rabbit hole that collapsed on her.
Karma ran over her dogma.
Except it isn't extremely complex and thinking it so just makes you as much a knob end as this idiot insult to the legal proffession.
Yeah, rocket surgery this ain't.
Do we have comparable stats for the survival of white babies vis a vis black doctors vs. white doctors? Or would that be racist?
No white people would use a black doctor.
She's trying really hard to sound smart, but too often she is exposed. SS has the same issue. Kagan must be constantly embarrassed by her progressive colleagues.
Stop criticizing our (latest) Affirmative Action justice for not knowing the difference between 0.07% and 40%. You know that progressives don't do math. Er, excuse me, maff.
That was subtle.
I am known far and wide as a diplomat.
This is standard CRT praxis. When you view all things through a racial lens whose entire point is to NOT determine if racism exists but RATHER to find where racism exists, all you see is racism.
Nancy, compro is not here to add to the conversation or debate anybody. He is here stir the pot. Hardly anybody responds to him because he is so toxic.
Lol. I've owned you in every debate.
So, is the 40% accurate or not? It would seem we would need to know how many black babies are born in distressed situations, right?
I've heard data re: mother mortality as well. Any idea on those numbers?
The raw numbers anre accurate but intentionally misleading. By doing an unidimensional aggregate analysis of the data instead of looking at multidimensional analysis (this is what the WSJ brings out and shows the 40% difference contradicts her overall conclusion), KBJ willingly mislead her audience to a bad conclusion.
So the "raw numbers" are misleading....so they're in on it too?
Did the WSJ have data on how many black babies were born in distress comparative to the total number born?
So the WSJ brought that her 40% difference contradicted her overall conclusion of 40%?
"Willingly mislead"....well, that's certainly an objective, non-biased/non-ideological take.....and to what "bad" conclusion is that exactly? ;)
In the 12 years under FDR, he packed the court with left wing justices. Now that was not a normal court. Apparently if the court is all left wingers as in the FDR court that is a normal court.
“Let’s compromise: We’ll do it my way.”
it wasn't just FDR, judicial thought was shifting across the board. It was IKE who put Warren in the slot.
Nobody packed the court like FDR did.
And those paid vacations, properties, and better still, an education paid for by wealthy donors to the SC elite, Timothy?
Is that normal..?
Or considering the quality of the judge(s) I'm talking about, it probably is.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/us-elections-government/ny-billionaire-paid-private-school-tuition-for-clarence-thomas-20230504-jrfnzzuwwra2ndvj5slynfju2e-story.html
Do you have any evidence of corruption or is this just another another smear campaign against the constitutionalists on the court ?
Uh....yeah, they just gave it to you. Check into Alito and his wife while you're at it.
Yes, it’s normal and not influence-buying. The only reason the left even brought those dumb cases up was to try to delegitimize the court. There was never any substance.
Having a donor buy an education for a Supreme Court Justice isn’t trying to buy influence? Then what is it? Can’t the Justice pay for it himself? Why does he accept a gift? Where was his judgment?
If the late Ginsburg had a relationship with George Soros in which he bought her a lavish vacation wouldn’t that look bad? Improper? Like he wanted something?
I would say yes. And I think you would too.
Ginsberg took plenty of paid vacations as the link below documents. Couldn't she pay for them herself? Why did she accept gifts? Where was her judgment? It seems you have very selective outrage, or maybe you're just ill informed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXYQicMNOn8
Timothy, if you bothered to read my post to the end you would see that I said if Ginsburg had the poor judgement to accept gifts I would not condone it. She shouldn’t have if you say she did, just like Thomas should not have. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
Right?
Unless you can show me some quid pro quo I see nothing wrong in either case. Do you think Ginsberg "gave something" in return?
I thought the decisions specifically stated this restriction was NOT to enable not providing service to anyone but rather, the customer couldn't demand your creativity to be used for a specific thing, i.e. gay marriage. You can't force people to speak/perform/create for something they don't agree with. That was my reading.
I believe your reading of the case is absolutely correct. The transaction in question was not a simple sale of goods or services. It was a sale of services that required the seller to invest artistically in the ideas and values of the buyer. That is a huge conceptual leap. The big surprises in this case were first, why it was not unanimous (IMHO, this case was a no-brainer), and second, why the seller had to invoke a first amendment claim of religious freedom in order to prevail. Will atheist lawyers now be required to provide services to all comers?
Remember the cake designer case. The left never rests until if forces compliance. Bends us to their will. We knew this was never about "tolerance." It was about making us bend the knee and embrace what is decreed.
Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cake shop! Remember John Roberts' weaselly parsing of the same issue by totally avoiding the main question of forced speech by focusing on the Colorado board's religious intolerant decision. The upshot was that Phillips was again attacked with another lawsuit on the same issue. It has been long past time for the Supremes to deal with the larger issue of forced speech.
Roberts is the epitome of weasel IMO.
It's all part of the grand takeover and the destruction of people's livelihoods and small businesses if they don't comply.
That’s the rub. At the heart of “liberalism” is a hatred of successful capitalism at a small scale. The only good capitalism in their mind is one that can (and will) comply with government edicts. Otherwise some people may get too rich to rely on government handouts.
Um, no, this successful businessman is a liberal, and I like capitalism fine. Don't confuse liberals with the goofs who fire professors for showing an image of Mohammed in a college art history class after issuing three trigger warnings to students.
Alas, I fear you’re a dying breed Shane.
Note the scare quotes
Note the scorn quotes in publius_x's reference to "liberalism". Actually the dominant strain of American conservatism from the 1960's through the 1990's is what is called liberalism in Australia, where the center-right party is the Liberal Party. Perhaps this should not be surprising, since conserving the American Founding is conserving the preeminently liberal event in human history.
The lot that appropriated the name are, as we've seen in their use of tech companies to censor disfavored political opinions, are not liberals, but according to Mussolini's own definition "union of state and corporate power," fascists.
And now, hopefully Jack Phillips can refile to the Supreme Court to get the harassment stopped for good. Hopefully he sues the State of Colorado for damages. Jared Polis is personally responsible for all of that. As well as his lawless Attorney General.
No matter what, lawyers of any persuasion will serve whoever they damn well please. Attorneys can act in virtually any appalling way they like to their clients and there's not a thing they can do. So that's a meaningless example.
In my experience if the lawyer does a bang-up job and wins the client thinks it was because the case was a slam dunk. If the lawyer does a bang-up job but loses the client thinks the lawyer screwed it up.
You sound like a lawyer. What about... (real example) lawyer 1 nearly dies of an illness, comes back with his marbles gone, gets replaced & he's pissed off about it. New managing partner insults the lawyer (also a partner) doing the work who resigns from case. New managing partner is literally capable of finding his butt with both hands (he did it in conversation) and could not so much as execute a filing, so he abandons the case, and just stops communicating. Then doesn't remember that he did.
Here's another. Lawyer doesn't appear at major hearing, and files later claiming he was temporarily incapable of practicing law due to a bicycle accident head injury. Opposing attorney produces video of said lawyer jumping up and down on stage, 2000 miles away when he was supposedly disabled---at a law conference. Lawyer gets censured. Client is f----d.
I could go on... and on.
That is what grievances are for.
Really? I would not have guessed. Tell me, how does that process work?
All I have done is: Write a letter per bar directions to the partners of the firm. When there was no answer, I filed motions for relief. After withdrawal, I filed state bar complaint.
I expect little or nothing.
Always good fun to trash lawyers, but if you give it a moment of thought you will see that there few other types of service providers who are called upon to advocate on behalf of their clients.
Well ... no that’s not true. We are required to be zealous advocates for our clients. And everyone deserves a defense. That’s why there are public defenders appointed to the most horrific criminals imaginable. Even if it makes them die inside, those attorneys represent their clients to the best of their abilities.
Well, yeah, it IS true. What I described, happened. It happened exactly as I stated it. Feel free to contact me. I need a good contract law attorney.
What I said is true, and I will provide sworn testimony with voluminous evidence to absolutely hideous treatment of clients by multiple lawyers, and by law firms. I can show over and over that there is absolutely no recourse at all and the California State Bar is an underfunded toothless organization.
An attorney has to do something like run a bordello out of their office AND get caught with reams of evidence. The last case I know of didn't lose his license until after getting convicted following an indictment by the FBI for corruption. He was the district attorney for Del Norte County. That case included open court declaration that the DA and members of his office had smoked meth with a man on trial. Etcetera.
Seriously, if you are a good, ethical attorney, I want to meet you. Look on Linked-In. I have a PhD from UC Davis.
Wow sorry to read this. I practice in Colorado and work with kids in the child welfare system so probably can’t help you much. But I am sad to read this!!
Yes, my reading as well.
You got it in one and these above "experts" missed the ball entirely. This was about compelled speech. This is radically different than simply refusing service.
Well that’s what the debate was about - when is it “speech” and when is it a “service”. In this case it’s clear but they spun hypotheticals when it’s not clearly one or the other.
Should it actually matter whether it's "speech" or "service" though?
An person is free to refuse a job offer because his boss would be black or Jewish or white or left-handed or deaf or Republican or female. He may be a bigot, but it would be both impractical and unethical to force people into employment relationships with others they detest.
However, an employer is not free to refuse to hire someone because they're black or Jewish or white or left-handed or deaf or Republican (maybe?) or female. The law forces him into an employment relationship with someone he may detest.
Let's say I drive up to a Motel 6 and walk into the office. I see the owner's picture on the wall; his name is Sing and he has a turban. I walk back out and go to the Days Inn next door. I may be an bigot and an idiot but not a criminal. However if you reverse that and the Indian owner sees me (A Latino man) walking up and flips on his No Vacancy sign to keep me away, he's an idiot and a criminal.
These distinctions can make some sense in terms of power dynamics. If it's the only motel for 20 miles, then the owner's refusal to serve me effectively prevents my obtaining a place to stay. In that case, the owner's freedom of association perhaps needs to take second place to my right to service. But those cases are rare. Jack Phillips customers, for example, suffered no injury and were able to get a cake made for free by a nearby baker with no problem. In that case, stomping on the business owner's freedom of association or religion can not be justified.
This case certainly does not go that far, but this case is the tip of a very large iceberg -- the Constitution (freedom of religion and association) and the Civil Rights Act (nondiscrimination) are in conflict. For 60 years we have leaned into the latter; this may be the case that starts us back the other direction.
That is the entire point. In this case, it was very evident this was simply a case of compelled speech. It was a very bad example to bring to the SCOTUS.
Yes I agree. Yet people latched onto the gay marriage piece so they could say it’s the end of gay rights as we know it.
Exactly. It’s why it’s important to discriminate against Asian Americans to end “White Supremacy”
I wouldn't bat an eyrlid. I'd take your money, you'd get a crap website or a cake that colloapsed when you put a knife near it and tasted like cardboard. There are more ways to kill a cat than drowning it in cream. It has never mattered what the rules are if someone disagrees strongly with them; you've always got results like that. We simply don't bother to do anything like our best; as in the old joke from the Soviet Union; you pretend to pay us; we pretend to work. Pissing people off never gets anything remotely like the best out of them. Quite a lot of the culture war is that: if you want to be bloody stupid about something there is nothing to stop me being bloody stupid about something else in return.
A contrary ruling would mean is a government bureau would get to decide if the same-sex wedding website was up to par - if it was as good as the websites she created for mixed-sex marriages. And the same would be true for every other creative endeavor - if a bureaucrat said it wasn't good enough, a partly or wholly subjective call, then the creator could be found guilty of illegal discrimination. That's not a society I want to live in or one compatible with the First Amendment. This is not the same as selling groceries, shoes or auto repairs.
This makes me think of the scammers who make a practice of finishing most of the meal they ordered and then complaining to the restaurant owner that it was awful so they can get out of paying for it.
We have to choose our battles, but I hope to be aware when I'm taking the easy way out instead of taking the path I should.
That is what I think too.
jack phillips doesn't seem like a guy who would do that.
But then they'd sue you for doing a poor job on their project because you're a bigot. And it wouldn't even have to be *true* that you did a bad job because of bigotry instead of because of ineptitude. In this new culture, bigotry is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and an accusation is enough to destroy a person's life and livelihood.
I am old enough to remember Jim Crow years where blacks were not allowed to eat or shop in white restaurants or stores and movie theaters had separate seating for blacks and they could not stay in white hotels.
You all know I am not a left winger but what is the difference between Jim Crow and not serving gays?
No difference, if it’s about service. But here, it’s not. The issue is not equal service, but forced speech. Literally, being forced to express what one finds abhorrent.
Now, figuring out what exactly that means, on precedents that have, for example, made erotic dancing a form of speech….
It ain’t easy. But it’s much harder when some members of the gay lobby straight up lie about what the decision says.
I'm torn between what you said and Jim Crow policies.
There are no easy answers to tough problems.
It's true that there are no easy answers to tough problems, but it is a more peaceful society that ALLOWS differences between people to be freely expressed. What was adjudicated here was in America, if any person asks you to participate in actions to which you object on religious grounds, do you have the right to decline. SCOTUS found that you do have that right. This ruling is in no way comparable to Jim Crow laws. It recognizes the constitutionally protected right of every American to hold religious views and act accordingly. It does not allow discrimination against gays. Should a gay person ask for a birthday cake for example, to deny service is against the law.
This is about compelled speech. This is radically different than simply getting breakfast. Imagine a situation where you made quilts. You had off the shelf quilts and you would accept commissions to create custom quilts. Anyone can buy a custom quilt but you could refuse to accept making a quilt where a customer demanded making one glorifying animal sacrifice to the dark lord Cthulhu.
It's a fine line and it is worth having the discussion but this is not a simple case of denying service as the media makes it out to be.
Agreed. And why do we have to make the examples about polar opposites or emotional situations. Can someone go to the Boston Symphony Orchestra and say I am offended that you do not play country music and could sue or force them to play certain songs? Its about the goverment telling you what you have to do, because it decides what is right or wrong. The leftists on the podcast think their views of progressiveness should rule peoples behaviors. The website designer knows it will be common knowleged about her beliefs - so let the free market decide her fate - not the goverment.
Good analysis. I would argue that it is about being COMPELLED to do something you CANNOT. Not don't want to, not disapprove of. CANNOT tap into the creativity required to do the job. IOW talent is not subject to performance on demand under random circumstances.
This case has nothing to do with refusing to serve people of a particular class and you are either too stupid or too disingenuous to understand this easily digestible fact.
If a gay producer asked Steven Spielberg to direct a pro-Nazi movie is Spielberg within his rights to turn it down because he doesn’t want to glorify Hitler?
Congratulations! You agree with the Supreme Court!
Thank you for the kind words. I haven't insulted you so why would you insult me. Do you insult everybody who disagrees with you?
I'm impressed with the general level of comment here, few choose to be rude. It seems the golden age of trolling is over ... but there are always holdouts.
Most of the comments on this BBS are civil. It's not to say we aren't passionate in our beliefs. You can be passionate with being vitriolic.
Amen
It this ruling was in fact "easily digestible," nobody would have to ask questions about it.
It is easily digestible. But nobody reads opinions in Toto, especially the lackeys at NYT, MSNBC, WaPo and even FOX.
This opinion in and of itself was easily digestible, as are most SCOTUS opinions I've read tip to tail. I used to be able to depend on the media for accurate summaries, but that hasn't been true for a while now, so slog we must. What's less digestible is understanding when "artistic expression" and "sincerely held religious views" are legitimate 1A reasons to not serve a paying customer, versus code for, "I don't cater to the likes of you people."
Because it is a creative endeavor. It is not a short order at the local diner. Creative endeavors rely on an inner talent to produce whatever the product is. If you as the source of the talent cannot be inspired to create on behalf of a client because of who you are (your deeply held beliefs), you cannot perform the service. To say that you must anyway is ludicrous.
Why be an asshole? The entire nation finds the case hard to digest and worth discussing. It is far from simple -- except in the minds of simpletons.
It’s only difficult in the minds of simpletons or people which believe the news is interested in conveying enough information for people to make an informed rational opinion.
When the news openly lies by omission to push a very specific agenda, then it becomes difficult.
I suspect that almost everyone here knows perfectly well they can't trust the MSM, and yet they find the subject fraught. I myself read the SCOTUS decision on AA directly (but I haven't read the 303 decision yet). But to continue the chain of insult, simple minds find simple answers ... your ball ... or should we stop this and return to the subject itself?
I think you are incorrect, but even in the remote chance I am incorrect, simpletons as you like to call people count too. This opinion is the law of the land and every American citizen is entitled to their reaction thereto. And this is a public forum manned by a wide variety of people, not a bar meeting.
Simplicity is THE ultimate sophistication.
Saying simple minds find simple solutions is simply an attempt of a poor thought terminating cliche.
Perhaps the difference is the time we live in. As Sandra Day said, one might permit a clear violation of the Constitution in some extreme situation -- but for a limited time. Thus, the blunt instrument of AA might be used *for 25 years* and then abolished. In the same way the 'public accommodation' rules, tho IMHO repugnant to Liberty, might be the blunt instrument needed at the time to get Blacks the right to sit at lunch counters. But is that blunt instrument still needed? Honestly how many Blacks are going to be turned away from a hotel these days? How many gay couples are *really* going to find it hard to find a baker for their wedding cake? How many tradespeople, like bakers or website designers, are *really* going to be turning away business? Perhaps the time comes to deal with this issue pragmatically, not theoretically?
Here is a relevant example. A retail printing shop is owned by a black person. Should he be required to design and print for a customer a set of flyers praising the KKK?
Thank you, everyone but the jerk who insulted me. You have brought a perspective I hadn't considered. Your examples were excellent.
Thanks again.
Indeed there a many variations on the theme, are there not? The question is so vexed that I myself favor a return to Liberty -- engage in commerce as you see fit. Not ideal of course, discrimination is unfortunate -- but Liberty should prevail.
There is a great deal of difference. The decision was NOT allowing a business to discriminate against gays. The opinion upheld the Constitutionally protected right to freely hold and express your religious views. Many believe the contract of marriage to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman for the purpose of rearing children. That view is a religious one. SCOTUS upheld that Americans are guaranteed that right by the Constitution. Had a gay customer asked for a birthday cake, to say no would have constituted illegal discrimination. However, the gay customer requested a wedding cake. Because this was a same sex wedding, to ask the business to participate in the wedding would have violated the Constitutionally protected right you have in America to believe the religious precept that marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. That's what the ruling held.
Cat, I think the difference is subtle but important. An establishment such as a restaurant or hotel holds itself out to all comers. But a creative personal service is more discreet. Would I take a case to vindicate a DNC voter suppression scheme? No I would not. Nor should an artist be forced to work on a cause he or she finds offensive.
Of course a smart person simply refuses with an excuse such as they're overworked.. But I do think the Court rightly decided the case - notwithstanding it's a close call.
Good analysis. And remember all of this came about with a BBQ joint and the Commerce clause.
I see your reasoning , but if the sign says open for business is it that much different for a cake shop or a hotel?
Agree that it's subtle but subtlety is important. Of course, nothing stops people from refusing to frequent businesses that take unpopular or bigoted stances. As some have learned to their chagrin. But the original intent of the Civil Rights Act was to stop discrimination in "place of public accommodation." And that still seems to me to be the most reasonable scope of our anti-discrimination laws.
I agree. I was just swept away with my memories of Jim Crow.
And let us not forget that Frankie D both tolerated segregation and refused to increase Jewish immigration or to bomb the extermination camps.
FDR was an elitist aristocrat and had little regard for the peasant class.
Henry Wallace steamrolled sharecroppers as well working for FDR.
Why don’t the customers simply find another provider and not be jerks?
Religious expressions are directly protected by the 1st Amendment. Perverse marriages are not found anywhere in the US Constitution.
The same argument applies to the ADA. Is it reasonable to force a small antiques shop in a mountain town that is mostly inaccessible to wheelchairs to install ramps and lifts? Shouldthey reallybe forced to change the historic layout of sloped floor & every floor with a high step? Why not allow them to do what they did in the one visit of the shop's 20 year life in an old, historic building? They lifted and helped the person manually.
Forty years ago when the ADA was passed, the tyrants forced us to build ramps. The town I live in tore up all of the city's curbs and installed concrete ramps at a huge cost.
Wouldn't have been better and cheaper to have a nationwide contest to see who could have built a better wheelchair that could negotiate curbs and single step ups? Give a large monetary reward to the inventor and subsidize the cost of the chair to those who needed them?
This is not a novel approach. It has been done before.
The basis of Jim Crow was a legal structure that clearly violates the equal protection clause and federal law. Of course there were unwritten codes to uphold segregation but that's a different beast. It really is a denial of service issues, where is the line?
There is no difference. The Bible and "religious faith" was heavily used to support segregation.
the Bible and religious faith were used heavily to discredit and defeat segregation. Most modern racism and (19th century and on) was based on crackpot interpretations of Darwinism and secular concepts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/12/05/discriminating-in-the-name-of-religion-segregationists-and-slaveholders-did-it-too/
https://religionandpolitics.org/2021/06/29/how-white-southern-christians-fought-to-preserve-segregation/
No.It was not.
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Told-Them-Evangelicals-Supremacy/dp/0197571069
Segregation was attacked through the courts and through protest.
Correct.
But the comment you responded to did not assert otherwise.
I wasn't meaning to reply to any other comments . I was just stating what I thought the opinion meant. It was a comment regarding the subject matter in the transcript. I was stating I thought the opinion was pretty clear, that's all..
👍👍
"The mainstream media’s reaction has been fairly unanimous: these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. These two decisions have undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and have weakened gay rights."
Dear Lamestream Press: These two decisions have undone decades of institutional racism in which unqualified students are advanced at the expense of qualified ones on the basis of skin color alone and have curtailed government-favored groups' ability to force individuals to express messages with which they disagree. (See "The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States")
There. Fixed it for you.
In the states where I have lived, schools with underperforming results received many thousands of dollars more per student with virtually no effect. (Whole language, anyone?) It may have been great for the teachers and administrators, but never seemed to reach the students where they were, let alone to address the issues they faced.
If effective interventions had been employed early on, there is no reason to believe that those students couldn't have caught up in good time and had the satisfaction to be earned when they applied and were admitted to competitive colleges.
Education is not a science, nor is it even a philosophy, it is more of an ad hoc idea that subjectively tries theory after theory but when they fail to help the old theory is tossed and a new one is inserted. There is no consequence for the education controlling interests. Failing schools is what we end up with, producing citizens who lack any intellectual curiosity and no ability to read or write coherently.
You have hit upon it. It took them 50 years to reluctantly admit that new math and bilingual education was a failure.
The tradition teaching of math was a success for thousands of years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Perhaps there’s a reason why descendants from Asian cultures score higher on the SAT... especially the math part...
Tiger Moms matter.
You never can tell from the articles one reads if the article is valid or BS. But I read a couple of articles that Asians score higher on IQ tests than non-Asians.
Depends on your Asian. This is more about East Asian cultures that take their lead from Confucian China. Do you get a lot of Nobels from Pakistan? In the West the Bible is arguably the most published book ever. In the Ummah the Koran might as well be the only book published. We needn't rely on newspaper or magazine articles. The academic reasearch is out there; the data for I.Q. tests is published. It isn't an accident that a disproportionate amount of the success of the iPhone and Intel CPU's is down to "Designed in Israel"; and the West is the Best simply because all the evidence says it is.
I think it is more likely the people in charge consider a school that produces good little communists is successful, regardless of their ability to add or read.
To be fair, Robert, most private businesses (including private schools) can reject defective material from suppliers--i.e., engineering firms can refuse to use Chinese steel to build a bridge. Public schools, conversely, are required to take all kids who live in the district, even those whose upbringings were so searingly deficient it would take years of one-on-one teaching to get the kids up to par ... if they're not already too far gone.
In other words, public schools have to build "bridges" with Chinese steel and Pakistani nuts and bolts. And we expect them to put out product that's great?
See Thomas Sowell on Black education before all this bullshit. It isn't difficult to explode this nonsense; you simply have to be able to read. You are merely exposing your (wilful?) ignorance most of the time.
Edit: Whoops! Spelt his name wrong. Sorry Thomas! I've typed it more often than my own in these spaces too. LOL!!!
Better my ignorance most of the time than yours all the time.
Also, it's "Thomas" and "willful," Brainiac.
My parents did same, and many parents do. It's smart and sensible to get your kids going as soon as they can mumble their first words, since so much learning happens in the first five years of life. But too many families don't bother, for a variety of reasons, and their kids are behind before first grade starts. By fifth grade, they'll never catch up. The public school teachers I know are appalled at how many of their students can't write even a basic short story . . . but can punch their smartphone keys at Olympic speed.
Historically, education involved someone with a particular skill teaching that skill to someone who did not yet have it. American schools of the "little red schoolhouse" variety succeeded in turning out generations of people who could read, write, and do arithmetic, despite those students having only the most basic of books, tools, and buildings. But teachers in those schools were required to possess the knowledge they were teaching, and if a teacher did a poor job, they could be replaced the very next term by someone else. When Laura Ingalls Wilder was teaching in late 19th century South Dakota, she had to pass an examination each year in order to qualify for a teacher certificate.
Somewhere in the process of trying to "improve" education, the system has managed to virtually destroy it instead. One has only to look at the failure of our school to teach those very most basic skills to see that.
The left defines diversity as people of different skin tones who think alike. Always remember Clarance Thomas is not diversity as he doesn't believe in the approved way. It was interesting seeing the faces of the mainstream press as they reacted to his response to Justice Jackson.
The issue is that no one, and Bari is not brave enough yet, to look at the numbers for African immigrants, middle to upper-class African American, and those who were sadly born into the cities. Do we look at the outcomes of those children whose parents care and go to charter schools against those whose parents don't care and live in places where the government is corrupt, schools are terrible, and the criminals reign with gang violence?
That is diversity in the African American community. But we don't dare say that the problem can be something other than systemic racism as this is not a search for truth but rather a political movement that wants political thought conformity. Thanks for the conversation.
I thought their responses on what schools want from diversity were very disingenuous. Perhaps these were the steelman arguments, but that’s not what we’ve all been living through.
This is a normal court, Mr President. They just happen to disagree with you.
Which, in many ways make them more normal.
Ahh but therein lies the rub. In the name of Unity, this president decries anyone who dare get in his way as Racists, White Supremacists, Insurrectionists, Destroyers of Democracy, and my favorite, Mega MAGA (whatever that is).
You see in the name of savings democracy, he is hell-bent on destroying it.
He lied about the unity. Lied. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Oh for sure. A euphemism for power and control.
When you understand how many young people have lived that environment for their whole lives and are disallowed from hearing perspectives from the other side, the president's language isn't simply divisive. It is willful hate speech targeting his political enemies, and it is a form of hatred that they teach to children.
"Everyone who doesn't agree with us is a hateful extremist, kids"
That’s right. And therefore must be stopped in any way possible. Free speech is no longer the metric of value. It’s “hate speech” or “extremism” which is really just people who disagree with us.
Remember, when Democrats says "democracy" (esp. in the phrase "our democracy"), they do not mean rule by the δῆμος , they mean rule by Democrats.
Thanks for this podcast it was a good one!
Turns out this SCOTUS is not as radical as media portrays. Odd.
Every “controversial” decision this court has handed down I think is the right decision. Then when AOC gang comes out against the court, I know it’s the right decision.
These cases are not controversial to many people.
Only to those who worship at the alter of left wing ideology.
1st of all, do we really need to spend even a second of brain time on whatever drivel comes out of the Biden administration? I mean we get it, guys, you don’t like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the constitution. You have the Senate and the Executive branch fully on your side, and the House of Representatives almost..the media, the corporations, the largest population centers in the biggest cities, and most of Western world leaders...
The Supreme Court, which decides the constitutionality of things, is in your way. You don’t like that and are using every tool of propaganda at your disposal to try and undermine it.
Looks to me like the founders were forward thinking and smarter than you. Shocker, I know. 🤦♂️
Brilliant comment. As he decried the electoral college and seeks to add states to our union and expand the Supreme Court, we are to believe he’s saving democracy. Heaven help us.
“Heaven help us”
Usually does…😃
throw the 10th on there as well, I would mention the 3rd but I wouldn't want to give our betters any ideas.
10A having to do with the rights of states and the people vs the federal government has been a political football since the Civil War thru the Covid lockdowns and mandates. SCOTUS has exhibited a certain “moral flexibility” on this one over the years depending on the makeup of the court and which player is “at bat”.
3A is an odd duck in that it deals with preventing the military from using your home as a barracks without permission. Other than certain Orange politicians living rent-free in peoples heads these days; I guess it could be stretched to include digital surveillance and data collection if you found a good lawyer willing to make that case. 3A has never been invoked.
I
Honestly, so many people have difficulty with the English language these days that it’s probably time for a new amendment that simply restates the bill of rights. Something like:
28A- “Seriously, people, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO CENSOR, CURTAIL, EDIT, BAN, GHOST, CANCEL, FUCK WITH IN ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM TO OWN ANY FIREARM OR WEAPON YOU F’ng WANT, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, FREEDOM TO GO TO CHURCH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AS WELL AS FREEDOM TO NOT TAKE DRUGS THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME NO MATTER WHAT YOUR STUPID REASON IS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WAR, The SUPER BOWL, VIRAL PANDEMICS, HEALTH SCARES, RACIAL DEMAGOGUERY, ALIEN INVASION, AND A FRIGGIN’ ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED)…SO HELP ME GOD!!!” (And maybe add a “this means you!” Sticker to the page in the Constitution on this one in case a Ketanji Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor is trying to “interpret” this through their respective racial experiences lenses. 🤦♂️) 😂
Isn't the Court's job to decide if a law is constitutional, as opposed to whether it's a good idea? The preview of the roundtable speaks to the latter, but that's not the Court's bailiwick or duty in this.
Fortunately the actual Justices (whose precise positions are available in the decisions) *do* understand their role, and for the first time in a long time, have the courage to ignore the voices screaming about “good ideas” from outside the building.
Well, about half of them do. Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and frequently Roberts fancy themselves somewhere between super-legislators and General Manager of “what’s good for Americans.”
If you listen to the podcast you will her Sarah state that this is the “least” number of cases overturned in six years. Harry is a moron. Harry! Filter brother, filter. Jeaninne ... you need “one hand”. Your constant statements of “I can see both sides.” Is frustrating. Then at the end ... “It’s complicated.” Doh ... take a stand and a position. Don’t hold yourself out as too intellectual to come to a conclusion.
Yes, the stats at the end tell the story that this court has not been convervative vs left. But the media never cares about the facts. They lie and no one calls them out.
I will completely give you that.
Thanks for describing the podcast in a nut shell.
I am glad I didn’t listen to it.
Comments are more fun.
I only referred to the preview - I didn't listen to the whole thing.
We have been bludgeoned with the “Diversity is our strength” mantra for decades now.
I have come to believe this is massive disinformation and propaganda. This country will succeed or fail on its accomplishments, its “intellectual property,” as it were, and not on its polyglot demographics. Meritocracy, not false “affirmative action,” is what will distinguish and sustain the future growth and prosperity of our country.
The only problem with today’s Supreme Court is the justices who stray from the Constitution and impute rights where there are none, in the name of ideological principles. We seem to have a 6/3 split when it comes to understanding and applying the Constitution to decisions.
Contrast the “diversity is strength” mantra with the finding that Finland - one of the most homogeneous nations on earth - is the “happiest” country.
It may be "happy" but has an obsession with having everyone go to university. Which simply devalues universities. Their acceding to NATO is an example of just how dumbed down the country is becoming. Russia is rather obviously no threat to a wet paper bag.
Hmmm.... Last week I thought it was ignorance that was strength, but I must have been wrong it's diversity. But, war is still peace and freedom is still slavery, right? And we've always been at war with East Asia.
It's very telling to read the dissenting opinions, from justices specifically chosen for their race and sex, on why majority decisions are wrong because they don't support "equity". Not because they are constitutionally unsound, but because some justices believe "equity" takes precedence over anything and everything.
Leftists fundamentally don't believe in our rights or laws. They will do anything they can get away with to support "equity" and will label you an extremist bigot if you fight their badly misguided revolution.
Exactly. And it won’t stop unless and until people offended by that particular grift call bu—sh— on it.
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish whether diversity=strength.
In the case of problem solving skills or an investment portfolio, yes, diversity=strength
In the case of building a brick wall or a cohesive human society; diversity=weakness
This is absolutely not about gay people. That’s the shift, the scare tactic, the Left wants you to believe. No, it’s a free speech case. It’s about the government’s compelling a business to say - to express an opinion - that the business owner does not share. It’s about the government’s telling you that your “free speech” has to align with theirs.
Perhaps the most important thing about this case is the litigant was pro-active; they didn't wait to get run-over like the cake makers: they brought their enemies to action before they could get traction; let alone get in their face.
The worm has turned.
And the government cannot do that.
I agree.
Who cares what a not normal putative POTUS says about anything?
Ha! I would have to say that 90% of the decisions he has made as President of these United States have been NOT NORMAL.
Yes. I think his worst statement was that an 8 year old should be able to decide for himself whether to have a sex change operation.
Anyone who denies the existence of his own granddaughter has no credibility about what kids can and can’t do. “The children belong to all of us! Except little Navy. She ain’t ours.”
Biden screeching about normalcy is hilarious. Is it "normal" to have a senile imbecile as president? Is it "normal" to shower with your daughter? Is it "normal" to preside over a family where you coddle and protect a criminal, corrupt drug addict?
In contrast, the Court's decisions were all more than "normal" - they reflected the sort of nation we want and were intended to be. A colorblind society, rewarding merit not tribalism. A Constitutional nation where Congress decides how our tax dollars are spent, not a President dispensing cash to buy votes. And a nation where a person may decide for what and for whom they will labor. Without the Court to protect us, we'd have to take up arms to restore justice and the rule of law.
It’s good thing SCOTUS is protecting us.
The alternative would be bloody, I agree.
He wasn't "screeching", he mumbled. The press did the screeching. The mumbling shows, I think, that Biden knew his undies were round his ankles on this.
They weren't "undies." Think Depends. The senile old windbag is a catastrophe.
there was coke in the white house.
Well, there's a reason Legacy Media is dying, and this is it. Americans are sick of them pushing their own ridiculous narratives instead of reporting on the news. Most Americans are happy with the decisions made by the supreme Court. I hope they tackle equity and woke Marxism in our institutions next.
Next fall keep an eye on the SCOTUS cases.
They will definitely do as you say.
I’m betting plaintiffs counsel are working round the clock to get cases docketed to overturn the left wing wind virus.
The 303 case does NOT say they don’t have to make a website for a gay couple. It says they don’t have to make a gay wedding website for anyone.
All the difference in the world.
I think the comment about compelled speech hit the mail on the head. When the law compels speech, it violates the Constitution. A paid website designer should not have a different set of standards than a musician. Both produce commercially offered works of creativity. I’ve wondered about this too - why would anyone want service of any kind from someone who dislikes you on principle? I don’t want a misogynist designing my website.
Excellent points! I’ve had this same conversation, if we will get out of the way, the market will resolve any supposed issue. If the creative person doesn’t want to provide their work to (fill in the blank) the word gets out and consumers will or will not do business with the creative person based on this. Why would I give my money to someone who is anti-me? Guessing there’s more than one web designer or cake baker available.
The creative person is going to direct the would-be customer to another who would better serve their needs, that is going to be upfront in the notice they wanted to put up. If that customer needs a website in future and the work didn't conflict with the creative person's ethics, all other things being equal where is the customer likely to place their business?
An ER doc (head of dept) I know, like most ER folks, gets attacked and screamed at by wackos regularly. A few have been shot. People have no idea. Sometimes it's a well person with them.
They're expected to always do their best. Mostly they do. Sometimes, as with Covid-19's low oxygen levels, the person is just not in their right mind. Low O2 makes them very stupid, and massive adrenalin makes them crazy. Knowing that helps, but it's still hard to get punched by someone you're trying to help.
I think it should matter how real the problem is. In the real world, customers flit from web dev to web dev. Loyalty for past performance approximates zero. Competition is international. No problem to find a web dev to do your main kampf site or porn site.
But, if you have a glioma, or a cerebral aneurysm, there is may be one guy doing that covering 3-10 counties. I know one, and he literally has a limo service so he can crash and sleep while being driven to the next surgery. If he says no, you're probably dead soon. 💀
However, mostly his patients aren't talking smack to him. They're a mess. So he usually doesn't confront it.
I don't think that is the issue. The owner of masterpiece cakes doesn't "dislike" homosexuals. He disagrees with that lifestyle and does not want to design and bake a cake celebrating gay marriage.
Me? Hell, I'd bake them all day, but that's not how he feels. It would be like trying to force me, as a retired physician, to print a "Hunter Biden for Surgeon General" poster or asking an English professor to lobby for Heels-Up Harris as Town Crier.
I stand corrected - dislike was too personal. Disagree on principle is more correct.
I agree - I'd never print a Hunter (or Jill) Biden for Surgeon General poster!
That's hitting below the belt!
Harris is very bright intellectually. She's also pretty right leaning in her actual decisions.
Whatever her actual intellect is, she seems incapable of expressing clear coherent thoughts. This is where building a career from her relationship with Willie Brown and the subsequent California crony style of Democratic political control gets you--as a candidate for all her elective offices, she remained completely unversed in retail politics, and so now utterly unable to speak contemporaneously.
That's because Harris is less authentic than an NFT purchased with Ethereum. Her persona is pure b*ll$h*t.
- She's not black. Her father is from Jamaican plantation owners. Her Brahmin mother from India is her coloration. She went to school in Canada from 13 graduating from Leonard Cohen's high school. Her busing experience? She was less than 4 years old in 1968. California kindergarten requires 5 years by Sept 1. Her father was a full professor of economics at Stanford. They did their best to shield her from the American experience.
- If Kamala Harris would just be herself, the real person (who is pretty freaking-conservative) she would probably be liked just fine, and do well. She is very smart and thinks about things. She's painted herself into a corner and lives behind a wall of bullcrap. In Australian lingo, Harris is a warden, masquerading as an inmate. (Aussies have two types, descendants of wardens from the early days, and descendants of inmates.)
She just sounds high to me.
Aw hell, it's no big deal. She's spent most of her life getting hit below the belt.
Because the Left wants you to comply - not just live and let live.
Agreed!
Sorry - NAIL
Oh, the slippery slopes are too numerous to count...if you can compel me to say something I don't want to say...then, you can compel me to create something I don't want to create...then, I can be compelled to think something I don't want to think...at this point, I am no longer a free individual but merely an unwilling shill for the state...g.