The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.
I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.
To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale. Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create. I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel. I get what you’re saying. I just think it will segregate us further. And I do mean segregate. If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me. That is segregation.
I disagree. For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know. And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.
this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
So you didn't like the Constitution when Roe was the law of the land for 50 years? What a bizarre comment.
Particularly in light of this gobbledygook explanation.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.
“Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government’s preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.”
“Your last name is probably Bradford or Bennett, your verbal baggage ain’t got nothing in it.”
The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.
I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.
To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale. Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create. I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel. I get what you’re saying. I just think it will segregate us further. And I do mean segregate. If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me. That is segregation.
I disagree. For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know. And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.
this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
I’m not. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses). Can’t put anything past these POS.
Love CB but all they have to do is not accept them. Unless it is for athletes only then bring on the blacks cause we know them southerners love their black athletes (entertainment purposes only).
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,923
edited July 2023
This Court is in disrepair. So many gains made and now undone. Who will fix it? And when?
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,923
Worth a thousand words:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.
I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.
To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale. Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create. I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel. I get what you’re saying. I just think it will segregate us further. And I do mean segregate. If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me. That is segregation.
I disagree. For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know. And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.
this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
I’m not. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses). Can’t put anything past these POS.
Maybe. But how many courts does it have to go through before it gets to the SC? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure it’s at least several. And none of them figured it out before hand? Even none on the SC who voted on it? Just seems weird that it goes all that way without fact checking any of it. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible a week ago.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.
maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.
I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.
To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale. Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create. I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel. I get what you’re saying. I just think it will segregate us further. And I do mean segregate. If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me. That is segregation.
I disagree. For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know. And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.
this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
I’m not. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses). Can’t put anything past these POS.
Maybe. But how many courts does it have to go through before it gets to the SC? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure it’s at least several. And none of them figured it out before hand? Even none on the SC who voted on it? Just seems weird that it goes all that way without fact checking any of it. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible a week ago.
Here's the thing.. it seems to be true that there was no real person that wanted the cake. If that means the case would not have had standing, then I agree it's a stunning oversight by the state of Colorado or anyone filling amicus briefs on the matter.
But if it would still have been a case, then what's the point? I'm not sure which scenario it is.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,923
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.
maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,321
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
There are several reasons I don’t like the student loan forgiveness. It only rewards those who took out student loans, and completely ignored everyone else, including….
Families like mine-we wen without sp we could save up for college. My dad created college savings since the day I was born. We’d keep family cars for 10+ years. Didn’t have cable TV. Didn’t upgrade and move into a bigger house. Etc. We were a single income house where my dad was a cop, not a large income. My parents made a lot of sacrifices for 18 years so I wouldn’t have to take on debt. I remember not even getting a microwave or answering machine when everyone else I knew had one. Every time I’d ask why don’t we buy something, the reply was saving for a rainy day and so we can go to college. I know a lot of people with more income not do the same. It’s a slap in the face to see families who didn’t save, but could have, get bailed out.
I had friends who chose not to go to a 4 year school because of the cost. Those chose something else instead because they didn’t want to take on debt. They started working after high school and are still in the same field.
But the biggest slap in the face are those who joined the military to pay for school. They gave up years of their life to join so they don’t have to take on debt, and now it doesn’t matter?
None of that seems right to me if you’re going to bail out someone who made the decision to take out loans for school, but not compensate anyone else who made other sacrifices. Not only not compensating them, but who’s paying they bill? They are if you’re using their tax money to do it.
There are several reasons I don’t like the student loan forgiveness. It only rewards those who took out student loans, and completely ignored everyone else, including….
Families like mine-we wen without sp we could save up for college. My dad created college savings since the day I was born. We’d keep family cars for 10+ years. Didn’t have cable TV. Didn’t upgrade and move into a bigger house. Etc. We were a single income house where my dad was a cop, not a large income. My parents made a lot of sacrifices for 18 years so I wouldn’t have to take on debt. I remember not even getting a microwave or answering machine when everyone else I knew had one. Every time I’d ask why don’t we buy something, the reply was saving for a rainy day and so we can go to college. I know a lot of people with more income not do the same. It’s a slap in the face to see families who didn’t save, but could have, get bailed out.
I had friends who chose not to go to a 4 year school because of the cost. Those chose something else instead because they didn’t want to take on debt. They started working after high school and are still in the same field.
But the biggest slap in the face are those who joined the military to pay for school. They gave up years of their life to join so they don’t have to take on debt, and now it doesn’t matter?
None of that seems right to me if you’re going to bail out someone who made the decision to take out loans for school, but not compensate anyone else who made other sacrifices. Not only not compensating them, but who’s paying they bill? They are if you’re using their tax money to do it.
I wasn't for it either, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. That was my question to the cartoon poster. Unless he agrees with,, and posts something that he doesn't understand at all. Surely that isn't the case, is it?
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing. It seems like the order should be vacated.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,321
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing. It seems like the order should be vacated.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing. It seems like the order should be vacated.
differing opinions on this.
That's weird.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,321
Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism? Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill? I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it.
Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing. It seems like the order should be vacated.
differing opinions on this.
That's weird.
Some of the arguments I've read about this has to do with how Colorado wrote that law. Apparently this opened the door for this type of ruling or lawsuit to begin with
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,321
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.
maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath.
It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.
but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.
Here’s how I see it, for what it’s worth, as it relates to the gay wedding website case:
the “pre-emptive” acceptance by SCOTUS, arguing that the “potential” for a violation of 1st amendment rights is total bullshit. Arguing that the “law” as written, in the “absence” of direct harm, is a violation is specious at best. In the past, SCOTUS, evaluated actual harm, “merit”, and compared it against “common” law, “precedent” and “intent.” This court, to the contrary, skipped over all of it and came to a decision based upon their “moral” interpretation of the three, a “coup” some might say.
Now, typically, in a case of “harm”, in this instance, a gay couple would have approached the shop, requested services and been denied. Okay. Now, it would have been up to the gay couple to file suit. That neither happened is astounding. The gay couple would have claimed “discrimination” and the shop owner would have claimed, “‘religious’ freedumb.” That didn’t happen. In fact, the shop owner could have exercised their “right,” and the gay couple or future gay couple shoppers would have kept moving on. No harm, no foul. But even if there had been a “legitimate” case, gay couple wants service, been denied, filed suit, the SCOTUS decision would have standing and legitimacy. Sadly, it’s imposing its will on spooky boogeyman cases.
Further, and I’m not a lawyer, but as a plaintiff filing suit, I’d think there’d be an affidavit stating that your filing is, “true” and that everything you claim is true to the best of your knowledge?” Under penalty of perjury? If not, it should be changed but if so, case should be vacated for lacking “merit.” Remember “facts” and “merit?” Anyone?
Otherwise, what’s to prevent a restaurant owner from claiming they don’t want to serve Muslims because they don’t prepare Hallal and they’re afraid of being sued (harm)?
Now this fucking SCOTUS. They are corrupted and have been bought. They claim “legitimacy” but they know where and how their bread has been buttered. They are there not for “independent” jurisprudence, open with a keen eye and brilliant legal mind, but rather, to impose the will of their billionaire patrons, Koch’s, et. Al. Read up on senator Whitehouse’s corruption of the SCOTUS by right wing billionaires. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, bought and paid for. But hey, both sides, right? Here’s where I’d ask the other side to point out how both sides are the same but the collective stupidity would give me buh buh buh hunter’s laptop.
Now, backtracking to Moscow Mitchy Baby and SCOTUS appointments. We know he changed the rules. We know he has no “integrity” for denying Obama’s nomination and fast tracking POOTWH’s. Let’s call it “moving the goal posts” or “tilting the playing field,” shall we? The claim or to posit that libs want “to change the rules” or “stack the court”, because “we don’t like the decisions” is utter and total bullshit. Us libs can live with “legitimacy” and “fairness” and the rule of law. But if the repubs keep fucking with it, delegitimizing the constitution and our history, basically cheating by constantly changing the rules, there’s going to Be a shit ton of dissent. This is about where I expect to hear about all the guns, white supremacy and how “god” knows.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Here’s how I see it, for what it’s worth, as it relates to the gay wedding website case:
the “pre-emptive” acceptance by SCOTUS, arguing that the “potential” for a violation of 1st amendment rights is total bullshit. Arguing that the “law” as written, in the “absence” of direct harm, is a violation is specious at best. In the past, SCOTUS, evaluated actual harm, “merit”, and compared it against “common” law, “precedent” and “intent.” This court, to the contrary, skipped over all of it and came to a decision based upon their “moral” interpretation of the three, a “coup” some might say.
Now, typically, in a case of “harm”, in this instance, a gay couple would have approached the shop, requested services and been denied. Okay. Now, it would have been up to the gay couple to file suit. That neither happened is astounding. The gay couple would have claimed “discrimination” and the shop owner would have claimed, “‘religious’ freedumb.” That didn’t happen. In fact, the shop owner could have exercised their “right,” and the gay couple or future gay couple shoppers would have kept moving on. No harm, no foul. But even if there had been a “legitimate” case, gay couple wants service, been denied, filed suit, the SCOTUS decision would have standing and legitimacy. Sadly, it’s imposing its will on spooky boogeyman cases.
Further, and I’m not a lawyer, but as a plaintiff filing suit, I’d think there’d be an affidavit stating that your filing is, “true” and that everything you claim is true to the best of your knowledge?” Under penalty of perjury? If not, it should be changed but if so, case should be vacated for lacking “merit.” Remember “facts” and “merit?” Anyone?
Otherwise, what’s to prevent a restaurant owner from claiming they don’t want to serve Muslims because they don’t prepare Hallal and they’re afraid of being sued (harm)?
Now this fucking SCOTUS. They are corrupted and have been bought. They claim “legitimacy” but they know where and how their bread has been buttered. They are there not for “independent” jurisprudence, open with a keen eye and brilliant legal mind, but rather, to impose the will of their billionaire patrons, Koch’s, et. Al. Read up on senator Whitehouse’s corruption of the SCOTUS by right wing billionaires. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, bought and paid for. But hey, both sides, right? Here’s where I’d ask the other side to point out how both sides are the same but the collective stupidity would give me buh buh buh hunter’s laptop.
Now, backtracking to Moscow Mitchy Baby and SCOTUS appointments. We know he changed the rules. We know he has no “integrity” for denying Obama’s nomination and fast tracking POOTWH’s. Let’s call it “moving the goal posts” or “tilting the playing field,” shall we? The claim or to posit that libs want “to change the rules” or “stack the court”, because “we don’t like the decisions” is utter and total bullshit. Us libs can live with “legitimacy” and “fairness” and the rule of law. But if the repubs keep fucking with it, delegitimizing the constitution and our history, basically cheating by constantly changing the rules, there’s going to Be a shit ton of dissent. This is about where I expect to hear about all the guns, white supremacy and how “god” knows.
And to all of it, I say, burn it all down.
Sounds about right! For anyone to keep saying the left wants to stack the courts Biden himself said he’s not in favor of it! So that argument should just be dropped it’s dead on arrival.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
So you don't like the Constitution. Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.
maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath.
It was ridiculous to not allow BO to sit a judge. Awful.
but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.
It’s not about “not liking” a court. The court is unrepresentative of the population it has power over. This court is the result of a series of an unprecedented manipulation of rules- creating an election year rule to deny BO right to fill Scalia’s seat while not enforcing that rule to fill RBGs seat immediately before an election
Also, when McConnell dropped the required votes needed to confirm from 60 to 50, it allows more extremist jurists to get confirmed, which is exactly what has occurred.
This is evidenced by a court aggressively claiming more power for itself, whether it chooses to decide cases with no aggrieved party, whether it chooses to overturn long established laws. These are moves that either never before occurred or were extremely rare. Now it’s common and not in the interest of close to sixty percent of Americans
It’s unfortunate independents see all this as “typical democrats don’t like the politics of THIS court.” This court’s actions are extreme and mostly unprecedented.
It just seems that whenever 1 side doesn’t have power they use claims if illegitimacy to target that agency. Trump and the MAGA have been doing it full on speeding claims against various organization whenever they don’t do the bidding of their leader. And it seems the Dems are doing it with the Supreme Court now.
Comments
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.
“Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government’s preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.”
“Your last name is probably Bradford or Bennett, your verbal baggage ain’t got nothing in it.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
But if it would still have been a case, then what's the point? I'm not sure which scenario it is.
I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It only rewards those who took out student loans, and completely ignored everyone else, including….
I had friends who chose not to go to a 4 year school because of the cost. Those chose something else instead because they didn’t want to take on debt. They started working after high school and are still in the same field.
None of that seems right to me if you’re going to bail out someone who made the decision to take out loans for school, but not compensate anyone else who made other sacrifices. Not only not compensating them, but who’s paying they bill? They are if you’re using their tax money to do it.
and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party?
differing opinions on this.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Some of the arguments I've read about this has to do with how Colorado wrote that law. Apparently this opened the door for this type of ruling or lawsuit to begin with
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
but it is also true that the liberals don’t like the court now and want to change the rules to stack it themselves.
the “pre-emptive” acceptance by SCOTUS, arguing that the “potential” for a violation of 1st amendment rights is total bullshit. Arguing that the “law” as written, in the “absence” of direct harm, is a violation is specious at best. In the past, SCOTUS, evaluated actual harm, “merit”, and compared it against “common” law, “precedent” and “intent.” This court, to the contrary, skipped over all of it and came to a decision based upon their “moral” interpretation of the three, a “coup” some might say.
Now, typically, in a case of “harm”, in this instance, a gay couple would have approached the shop, requested services and been denied. Okay. Now, it would have been up to the gay couple to file suit. That neither happened is astounding. The gay couple would have claimed “discrimination” and the shop owner would have claimed, “‘religious’ freedumb.” That didn’t happen. In fact, the shop owner could have exercised their “right,” and the gay couple or future gay couple shoppers would have kept moving on. No harm, no foul. But even if there had been a “legitimate” case, gay couple wants service, been denied, filed suit, the SCOTUS decision would have standing and legitimacy. Sadly, it’s imposing its will on spooky boogeyman cases.
Further, and I’m not a lawyer, but as a plaintiff filing suit, I’d think there’d be an affidavit stating that your filing is, “true” and that everything you claim is true to the best of your knowledge?” Under penalty of perjury? If not, it should be changed but if so, case should be vacated for lacking “merit.” Remember “facts” and “merit?” Anyone?
Otherwise, what’s to prevent a restaurant owner from claiming they don’t want to serve Muslims because they don’t prepare Hallal and they’re afraid of being sued (harm)?
Now this fucking SCOTUS. They are corrupted and have been bought. They claim “legitimacy” but they know where and how their bread has been buttered. They are there not for “independent” jurisprudence, open with a keen eye and brilliant legal mind, but rather, to impose the will of their billionaire patrons, Koch’s, et. Al. Read up on senator Whitehouse’s corruption of the SCOTUS by right wing billionaires. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, bought and paid for. But hey, both sides, right? Here’s where I’d ask the other side to point out how both sides are the same but the collective stupidity would give me buh buh buh hunter’s laptop.
Now, backtracking to Moscow Mitchy Baby and SCOTUS appointments. We know he changed the rules. We know he has no “integrity” for denying Obama’s nomination and fast tracking POOTWH’s. Let’s call it “moving the goal posts” or “tilting the playing field,” shall we? The claim or to posit that libs want “to change the rules” or “stack the court”, because “we don’t like the decisions” is utter and total bullshit. Us libs can live with “legitimacy” and “fairness” and the rule of law. But if the repubs keep fucking with it, delegitimizing the constitution and our history, basically cheating by constantly changing the rules, there’s going to Be a shit ton of dissent. This is about where I expect to hear about all the guns, white supremacy and how “god” knows.
And to all of it, I say, burn it all down.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Also, when McConnell dropped the required votes needed to confirm from 60 to 50, it allows more extremist jurists to get confirmed, which is exactly what has occurred.
This is evidenced by a court aggressively claiming more power for itself, whether it chooses to decide cases with no aggrieved party, whether it chooses to overturn long established laws. These are moves that either never before occurred or were extremely rare. Now it’s common and not in the interest of close to sixty percent of Americans
It’s unfortunate independents see all this as “typical democrats don’t like the politics of THIS court.” This court’s actions are extreme and mostly unprecedented.