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

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Obergefell and Loving are next for the Federalist society owned judges. But I'm sure some here will say everything is just fine. 🙄

 

Nobody posting in this thread the last few days is saying everything is fine.

 

Congress is broken.  There appears to have been a concerted and explicit effort to befriend and then curry favor with Supreme Court Justices to influence them.  I'd support the impeachment of at least one Supreme Court justice (and I know less about Kavanaugh so potentially him too which is why at least one and even the likes of Alito.  @Larry makes the point to get the job at a conservative Justice you have to lie about your views on abortion essentially your whole career, and I think he makes a good point).  

 

There are still posts in this thread that are exaggerating some Supreme Court decisions and misrepresenting them.  I'd hope there are people here that are smart enough to make that distinction.

Edited July 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Sisko]

17 hours ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

Fight fire with fire. 
 

I was watching a video and got an email from UCLA saying that it might not affect students that much because a student can still talk about the struggles they have faced due to race.
 

Students “Must be treated based on their experiences as an individual” as individual I can still talk about the struggles I have faced due to race. I think it will be okay. 

The garbage SCOTUS may have created one of the only situations in which it’s helpful to have a name like LaKeisha or Shaquan.😃
 

9 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Supreme Court to weigh right of accused domestic abusers to own guns

Hope y'all ready for some freedom

If this happens not only will it be a travesty, but it will remove one way to remove weapons from the hands of mass shooters. However, the biggest issue is that it creates a slippery slope. After all, if this type of violent criminal should be able to own guns, why not rapists, muggers, bank robbers, etc.?

[PeterMP]

39 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

If you are running a business in a way to not break the law because of your religious beliefs (e.g. not taking on any wedding related work so you don't have to turn down certain wedding work) or operating a business knowing you are breaking the law (turning down certain wedding work because of your religious work) aren't you being injured?

 

Either you are economically being limited or you are dealing with the constant stress of knowing at any time you might be found to be breaking the law (I'm not sure of the penalties in the Colorado law).  Either way that seems to me be an injury and that's what she's claiming.

 

(With respect to this case, what I haven't seen anybody bring up is what this means with respect to the Hindu caste system and discrimination.  If I'm Hindu, can I discriminate based on caste?  From what I know, this decision would seem to suggest that it is okay.  Caste isn't even a protected class.

 

If I had lots of extra money sitting around, I'd find somebody and some case and start it going through the courts to see the limits of this Supreme Court.  Are they really going to rule in support of Christians or are they willing to be intellectually consistent?  And do Americans care.)

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

If you are running a business in a way to not break the law (e.g. not taking on any wedding related work so you don't have to turn down certain wedding work) or operating a business knowing you are breaking the law (turning down certain wedding work because of your religious work) aren't you being injured?

 

Either you are economically being limited or you are dealing with the constant stress of knowing at any time you might be found to be breaking the law (I'm not sure of the penalties in the Colorado law).  Either way that seems to me be an injury and that's what she's claiming.

 

(With respect to this case, what I haven't seen anybody bring up is what this means with respect to the Hindu caste system and discrimination.  If I'm Hindu, can I discriminate based on caste?  From what I know, this decision would seem to suggest that it is okay.  Caste isn't even a protected class.

 

If I had lots of extra money sitting around, I'd find somebody and some case and start it going through the courts to see the limits of this Supreme Court.  Are they really going to rule in support of Christians or are they willing to be intellectually consistent?  And do Americans care.)

That’s interesting. I never thought of the possibility of such a case, but on occasion I have seen Indians get into arguments along the lines of “This isn’t India and that caste **** doesn’t fly here.”

 

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

That’s interesting. I never thought of the possibility of such a case, but on occasion I have seen Indians get into arguments along the lines of “This isn’t India and that caste **** doesn’t fly here.”

 

 

 

I wanted to make the point with respect to your picture that this case was tied to the 1st amendment in terms of religion and speech..  Web designing being a form of expression.  Historically, just selling things has not been considered a form of expression and so at least isn't clear if this case would apply to just operating as a check out person or a store selling things.

 

This case was really based on two 1st amendment rights.

 

There are Indians that still apply the caste system in the US and even some cases where companies are being sued for Caste discrimination.

 

https://apnews.com/article/cisco-caste-discrimination-lawsuit-california-a82cf1b775217bd3cabca24be89c3bf8

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

After all, if this type of violent criminal should be able to own guns, why not rapists, muggers, bank robbers, etc.?

But the key term is accused. So they’re not criminals. Yet. 
 

I don’t like the idea but here again we have obvious misrepresentation. 

21 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

 

 

another example. As has been explained - there’s a free speech tied to work product requirement. 
 

selling groceries isn’t free speech. 
 

im a bit skeptical on the website -> art -> therefore free speech, rational used, but at least it’s sort of kind of there. 
 

so sure the meme is funny but an obvious misrepresentation and full of alarmism 

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

im a bit skeptical on the website -> art -> therefore free speech, rational used, but at least it’s sort of kind of there. 

 

I don't think anybody objected to the idea that website design is expression and so protected.  I don't think anybody in their writing, question, or decision suggested that might be an issue.

 

(Though I will point out that the Constitution says speech.  It wasn't clearly interpreted as expression until probably 1931, and there are state Constitutions that are more broad. So if you want to tell me you believe in reading what is literally there and a historical view, then that should be an issue for you.  I'd love to seen Thomas and his more "conservative" peers make that point, but that's where I don't think they really care.  They just want to come to the decision they want to come to.)

Edited July 1, 2023 by PeterMP

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't think anybody objected to the idea that website design is expression and so protected.

I’m not exactly objecting. I’m just skeptical. I’d the ruling was that it wasn’t expression/speech I would have accepted that more easily than this. 
 

I’m clearly influenced by the fact that I’ve held many types of jobs on the IT world including graphs design as a high school intern, web design as both intern and later professional, and application design. 
 

at no point in time did I consider those roles expression or speech of mine. Never. I get my opinion doesn’t matter - but my opinion is this is totally a stretch. 
 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

I guess I still don't understand how the case got to the Court. Her entire case was built on a lie. 

[PleaseBlitz]

55 minutes ago, tshile said:

another example. As has been explained - there’s a free speech tied to work product requirement. 
 

selling groceries isn’t free speech. 

Correct. You’ll have to use the USPS case this term to assert your “right” to not do your job because of your religious beliefs. 

[PleaseBlitz]

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

I guess I still don't understand how the case got to the Court. Her entire case was built on a lie. 

Not the first time Gorsuch has done that. Last term he ruled in favor of the football coach who was praying after games. Gorsuch said it was ok because it was a, quote, “short, private, personal prayer” and the coach, quoting Gorsuch again, “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

 

Except, it was none of those things. 
 

 

[The Evil Genius]

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Not the first time Gorsuch has done that. Last term he ruled in favor of the football coach who was praying after games. Gorsuch said it was ok because it was a, quote, “short, private, personal prayer” and the coach, quoting Gorsuch again, “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

 

Except, it was none of those things. 
 

 

 

So what you're saying is we (people who are gay and/or in mixed marriages) shouldn't worry about these Federalist judges going after other cases like Obergefell and Loving, right? Because no one possibly could get their attention based on a lie. 

[bearrock]

28 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

So what you're saying is we (people who are gay and/or in mixed marriages) shouldn't worry about these Federalist judges going after other cases like Obergefell and Loving, right? Because no one possibly could get their attention based on a lie. 

 

Loving is not getting overturned and even if Obergefell gets overturned, Respect for Marriage Act was signed into law last year.  There's plenty to criticize and express concern over with the current SCOTUS without devolving into baseless fear mongering.

[PleaseBlitz]

Loving won’t get overturned simply because it would inconvenience Justice Thomas and this SCOTUS is all about their own personal comfort. 

[The Evil Genius]

18 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Loving is not getting overturned and even if Obergefell gets overturned, Respect for Marriage Act was signed into law last year.  There's plenty to criticize and express concern over with the current SCOTUS without devolving into baseless fear mongering.

 

Respect for Marriage Act does nothing but say that other states have to accept an existing gay marriage in a state were it was legal to get. Overturning Obergefell would likely be the first step in making all gay marriages illegal nationwide, no? 

Edited July 1, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Respect for Marriage Act does nothing but say that other states have to accept an existing gay marriage in a state were it was legal to get. Overturning Obergefell would likely be the first step in making all gay marriages illegal nationwide, no? 

 

No,  because even without constitutional protection, same sex marriage sanctioned by another state would be entitled to full faith and credit by virtue of the federal law.  So a same sex couple living in a state where such marriage is prohibited could get the marriage in a different state, come back and now their marriage is federally required to be recognized.  It would take overturning Obergefell plus a federal law overturning RMA to enable any states to effectively ban same sex marriages again.  Given the public sentiment and the fact 61 senators voted in favor of RMA just last year, the chances of same sex marriages being banned again in the US in anywhere  near future is very very low.   Is it possible?  Sure.  Is it a meaningful risk posed by this SCOTUS, not at all in my opinion.  I think people have by in large moved on from the notion that gays are damning the country to eternal hellfire.  That's probably a job better left for transgendered now.

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

It would take overturning Obergefell plus a federal law overturning RMA to enable any states to effectively ban same sex marriages again. 

Or SCOTUS striking down Obergfell and RMA in one fell swoop. 

[bearrock]

8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Or SCOTUS striking down Obergfell and RMA in one fell swoop. 

 

Always possible.  STATE RIGHTS!!!! (when it suits us)

[The Sisko]

49 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Loving won’t get overturned simply because it would inconvenience Justice Thomas and this SCOTUS is all about their own personal comfort. 

I’d love to see a challenge to Loving just to see Judge Ruckus, AKA Clarence Uncle Thomas be the only one of them to vote to overturn it. He’s just that devoted to Ole Massa.

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

I’d love to see a challenge to Loving just to see Judge Ruckus, AKA Clarence Uncle Thomas be the only one of them to vote to overturn it. He’s just that devoted to Ole Massa.

He would never overturn it because it would infringe on the rights of white people to do whatever the **** they want. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Correct. You’ll have to use the USPS case this term to assert your “right” to not do your job because of your religious beliefs. 

 

So I've read less about this case and it seems to have gotten less press.

 

Does anybody know is this a case where the person was hired under the assumption that they wouldn't have to work Sunday (potentially even took the job because they wouldn't have to work Sunday) and being interpreted strictly in that manner or is this being more broadly interpreted?

 

Are we looking at, even though you are hiring somebody partly because you need people to work Sundays, but you can't not hire because I'm Christian because that's discrimination based on religion, but if you do hire me you can't ask me to work Sunday's because that's a violation of my religious right?

 

Or is this, you can't hire me under a situation where I'm not expected to Sunday, then change that expectation, and fire me because I refuse to work Sundays based on my religious beliefs?

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Not the first time Gorsuch has done that. Last term he ruled in favor of the football coach who was praying after games. Gorsuch said it was ok because it was a, quote, “short, private, personal prayer” and the coach, quoting Gorsuch again, “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

 

Except, it was none of those things.

 

 

That was a bad decision.

[TheGreatBuzz]

48 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Does anybody know is this a case where the person was hired under the assumption that they wouldn't have to work Sunday (potentially even took the job because they wouldn't have to work Sunday) and being interpreted strictly in that manner or is this being more broadly interpreted?

 

Yes, he started working for the Post Office specifically because *at the time* they weren't open on Sundays.