posted by like_that

A lot of big decisions should be coming in the next few weeks.  The SCOTUS just ruled in favor for the baker.  I am not sure why the USA Today headline says "narrowly," because 7-2 seems pretty decisive to me.  

Ha!  Was going to post the same thing - CNN reported it as "ruled narrowly....6-2".  It's possible the scope of the decision was narrowly defined, but it sounds like they were referring to the actual vote.

If only it had been 5-4 then liberals could have another meltdown about Trump and Repubs.

posted by like_that

A lot of big decisions should be coming in the next few weeks.  The SCOTUS just ruled in favor for the baker.  I am not sure why the USA Today headline says "narrowly," because 7-2 seems pretty decisive to me.  I know a lot of people will make this a social and religious argument, but to me I always felt it was more of a free business issue and a slippery slope if our Government started to force private businesses to serve/sell to people by gun point.  As I said from the beginning, a business should be able to serve or sell to anyone they please.  If a business was dumb enough to deny service to somebody for anu immoral reasons, the free market would make sure that business pays the consequences.  

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/

They say "narrowly" because the case did not issue some grand holding with broad implications gay rights, religious rights, commerce, etc. but rather relied on the particular facts of the case - namely, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated this particular defendant rather poorly and that unfair and biased treatment of him violated his right to freely exercise his religion. 

This to me is an example of how and when the Supreme Court does a really good job. Applying the law to the facts of the particular case and leaving it open for other similar cases to be decided on their own facts rather than the broad pronouncement of an earlier court. 

posted by BoatShoes

They say "narrowly" because the case did not issue some grand holding with broad implications gay rights, religious rights, commerce, etc. but rather relied on the particular facts of the case - namely, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated this particular defendant rather poorly and that unfair and biased treatment of him violated his right to freely exercise his religion. 

This to me is an example of how and when the Supreme Court does a really good job. Applying the law to the facts of the particular case and leaving it open for other similar cases to be decided on their own facts rather than the broad pronouncement of an earlier court. 

You're giving the media too much credit.

Yeah, I thought the baker case was so dumb. The gay couple taking a dispute about a wedding cake to the Supreme Court is absurd. Just find another baker, easy. It's not like a civil rights lunch counter case. I'm ok with the Court's decision. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah, I thought the baker case was so dumb. The gay couple taking a dispute about a wedding cake to the Supreme Court is absurd. It's not like a civil rights lunch counter case. I'm ok with the Court's decision. 

I agree. The baker didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. He was not comfortable being a part of their wedding ceremony because it went against his religious beliefs. While I also think that is a little silly, it should certainly be his right to deny service for that reason. Voice your displeasure with his decision publicly so people are aware, and those that disagree with him can take their business elsewhere. Just let the market react.

posted by like_that

You're giving the media too much credit.

"Narrow" in this context is a term o art from the legal profession that media parrots from their legal analysts. Thinking USA Today of all places is framing the news for an anti-religious narrative is giving them too much credit. 

posted by BoatShoes

"Narrow" in this context is a term o art from the legal profession that media parrots from their legal analysts. Thinking USA Today of all places is framing the news for an anti-religious narrative is giving them too much credit. 

I understand the explanation, however at this point it is difficult for me to give the media the benefit of the doubt.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah, I thought the baker case was so dumb. The gay couple taking a dispute about a wedding cake to the Supreme Court is absurd. Just find another baker, easy. It's not like a civil rights lunch counter case. I'm ok with the Court's decision. 

Could it be that the couple wanted to be denied by the baker so that they could bring this issue (at least, an issue in their mind) to the forefront by claiming discrimination and taking it to the Supreme Court?

posted by wkfan

Could it be that the couple wanted to be denied by the baker so that they could bring this issue (at least, an issue in their mind) to the forefront by claiming discrimination and taking it to the Supreme Court?

 

There it is. Play the victim, sue the big evil Christian baker. 

posted by like_that

I understand the explanation, however at this point it is difficult for me to give the media the benefit of the doubt.

If the decision had gone the other way, is there much doubt the adjectives would have been "sweeping", "landmark", or similar?

After doing some research it sounds like this case is more about due process than gay/religious rights. 

The baker didnt deny them their rights....he didnt keep them from going down the street.

Image if they wanted a chocolate cake, and the baker said he only makes vanilla. 

After reading about the decision, the SCOTUS didn't go far enough.  They pretty much kicked the can down the road.  Another gay couple could go in and easily file another lawsuit  to the same baker for the same shit. 

The SCOTUS also threw out the illegal immigrant abortion case.  I did not follow that one much, and thus I have no take on it. 

posted by like_that

After reading about the decision, the SCOTUS didn't go far enough.  They pretty much kicked the can down the road.  

I think that was the correct path.  The central question of the case would have been setting precedent on whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class.  And while their ruling on gay marriage would arguably already answer that question, it's really the job of Congress if they want to include sexual orientation as a federally protected class.

So a rare case where the SCOTUS passed on an opportunity to legislate from the bench.

It's sad that this was even a case and then got all the way up to the SC. 

As has been stated more than once already, let the market decide.

Today the so-called "Muslim ban" got upheld. Turns out the President does have some rights, regardless of his reasoning for doing it.

Also, California got torched in the opinion where they tried to force pregnancy centers to give information on abortion (violating free speech).

It is amazing how some courts just want to legislate from the bench and let politics influence the rule of law (yes, I know it is guilty on both sides).

Yeah the Muslim Ban 3.0, which was targeted to a few countries was upheld. (If it was still the version 1.0, I doubt it stands.) I read it as it just gives the President more power. The President can pretty much bar people from any country for National Security reasons. He kinda had the power before, but this just reinforces it. The court could have reigned in the Executive Power over that and said it is up to Congress to determine that policy.

Now, if next year, for whatever reason, Trump wants to ban all people from say China because of National Security reasons, sounds like he could and Congress would have to only react and try and pass a law to stop him. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah the Muslim Ban 3.0, which was targeted to a few countries was upheld. (If it was still the version 1.0, I doubt it stands.) I read it as it just gives the President more power. The President can pretty much bar people from any country for National Security reasons. He kinda had the power before, but this just reinforces it. The court could have reigned in the Executive Power over that and said it is up to Congress to determine that policy.

Now, if next year, for whatever reason, Trump wants to ban all people from say China because of National Security reasons, sounds like he could and Congress would have to only react and try and pass a law to stop him. 

 

 

Good....sounds like something the executive branch actually be able to do.  

The last few days the SCOTUS has delivered some heavy blows to the left.

-Travel Ban

-Abortion/hospital case in Cali

-A few gerrymandering cases

-They kicked back the florist case back to the lower courts

A lot of these came from 5-4 decisions. Shit like this is why I am happy Hillary isn't president.

Amen

New ruling says that unions can't force non-members to pay fees. So much winning. I'm sure some people will somehow complain about this. 

I can't take it; stop winning so much.

posted by iclfan2

New ruling says that unions can't force non-members to pay fees. So much winning. I'm sure some people will somehow complain about this. 

as a union member who in Ohio really has no rights for employment since the evaluation system for my job has changed and you can be let go for any reason,why pay dues for protective rights under any collective bargaining agreement?  I will just take the $700 a year back in my paycheck.