SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[mistertim]

35 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Supreme court is perfectly fine with protestors outside the private residences of abortion doctors.  As fate would have it, the addresses of the justices have been plastered around the internet.  Perhaps there are better places to protest than where they eat dinner.  Places a bit more disruptive.  Then again, why not protest them everywhere?

 

They're also perfectly fine with trampling womens' rights to their own bodies. Or is there also a loophole now where women still keep that right as long as they happen to be out at dinner or something?

[The Evil Genius]

 

🤘

[Long n Left]

4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

🤘

Better be rocking out some Black Sabbath at that invocation!

[China]

 

[The Sisko]

On 7/14/2022 at 4:21 PM, The Evil Genius said:

 

🤘

I love me some Satanists. Too bad it wasn’t someone even more scary...like a Muslim.

[Cooked Crack]

 

Very professional

[Captain Wiggles]

Such great comedic timing and writing. Alito really should quit his day job. 🥸

[JCB]

Independent judiciary, y'all. Also what's with the beard? In hiding?

[TradeTheBeal!]

What a dick.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Long n Left]

8 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Gen. Flynn, come on down!

[The Evil Genius]

On 8/3/2022 at 5:00 AM, Long n Left said:

Gen. Flynn, come on down!

 

Also the asshat Navy doc who was Trump personal liar. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[China]

 

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

Proof once again that the GOP is anything other than pro life. 

[bearrock]

So do these right to flout federal laws based on religious beliefs extend to non-Christian religions too?  

[Larry]

27 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Specifically, their religious right to kill people they don't like. 

[Jabbyrwock]

11 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So do these right to flout federal laws based on religious beliefs extend to non-Christian religions too?  

 

I lobbied pretty hard to get satanic child sacrifice approved over here.  No dice.  They said I had to "raise" him, or some such.  I still think he would have turned out a very different boy with a little satanic sacrifice early on...but the state just had to step on my religous freedom.  Go figure.

 

[JCB]

5 hours ago, bearrock said:

So do these right to flout federal laws based on religious beliefs extend to non-Christian religions too?  

 

Or to Christians who are pro-choice?

[China]

Roberts and Kavanaugh Issue a Surprise Warning Shot to Conservative Lawyers

 

The Supreme Court divided 5–4 in a clash over religious liberty and LGBTQ equality on Wednesday, forcing Yeshiva University to stop discriminating against a gay rights group on campus. But the majority’s order had little to do with this culture-war skirmish. Instead, it was a rebuke of Yeshiva—and specifically, its overeager lawyers—for racing to SCOTUS after losing in the lower courts because of their own errors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not side with the three liberals against the university because they think gay students deserve equal treatment. They did so because Yeshiva brazenly abused the court’s shadow docket on the assumption that it would get special treatment. It was an understandable gamble. But it failed.

 

Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance arose after the school denied official recognition to a student group that affirms the equal dignity of LGBTQ people. Yeshiva calls itself a Jewish university; however, it is incorporated as a secular institution in order to receive government funds, and fewer than 5 percent of students major in Jewish studies. The LGBTQ student group accused the school of violating the New York City Human Rights Law and sued for formal recognition. Yeshiva argued that it was exempt from the Human Rights Law because it is a “religious corporation”—and added that if the law did apply, it violated the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Religious University Shutters All Student Clubs Rather Than Recognize One LGBTQ Group – Despite Supreme Court Order

 

From Accounting to Zoology, undergrads at New York City’s Yeshiva University can pick and choose from 87 student organizations to join and engage with fellow students. There’s the Alexander Hamilton Society, the College Diabetes Network, Engineering Club, Jewish Activism Club, Rubik’s Cube Club, Skiing + Snowboarding Club, College Democrats, and College Republicans, but there is not an LGBTQ club.

 

Nor will there be, if Yeshiva University has its way. And as of Friday at 12:24 PM, there are effectively no longer 87 other clubs, at least for now.

 

Rather than accept a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ordered the 136-year old private Orthodox Jewish university, chartered by the State of New York, to follow a state court’s ruling which directed it to recognize its LGBTQ students’ organization, Yeshiva University administrators via email announced to its students, “the university will hold off on all undergraduate club activities while it immediately takes steps to follow the roadmap provided by the US Supreme Court to protect YU’s religious freedom.”

 

In other words, all clubs are effectively shuttered, for now.

 

“Yeshiva University is putting all club activities on hold while it presses on w[ith] its quest for constitutional protection from recognizing the club,” reports The Economist’s Steven Mazie, who covers the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

“Yeshiva University suspends all clubs, which students pay for, as it tries to block its Pride club,” reports The Times of Israel editor Luke Tress.

 

Calling it “the latest escalation in the Orthodox Jewish school’s attempt to avoid recognizing an LGBTQ campus group,” The Forward reports, “Yeshiva University announced Friday it was suspending all student clubs.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

The battle over Texas’ social media censorship law is likely to go to the US Supreme Court

 

Technology trade groups are likely to appeal a ruling that would allow Texas to punish large social media platforms for blocking users because of their political views. The case could ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Late Friday, a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split decision, with two of the three judges on the panel ruling to uphold House Bill 20. The law bans social media platforms with more than 50 million users from removing an account holder for what it terms "viewpoint discrimination."

 

Under HB 20, a banned user can sue a social media platform for reinstatement. If that person can't find a private attorney, the Texas attorney general may bring a suit on the person's behalf.

 

Two social media trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) argued that the law violated the First Amendment rights of the platforms to moderate their own content. A federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs, and the US Supreme Court issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the 5th Circuit considered the case.

 

Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote the decision of the panel.

 

"In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person's right to ‘the freedom of speech.' But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person's enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation's unenumerated right to muzzle speech (italics in the original)," Oldham wrote. "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings."

 

Matt Schruers, president of the CCIA, said the ruling went against a vast body of case law on the First Amendment. 

 

Click on the link for the full article