SCOTUS LGBTQ JUDGMENT
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
Seems like the whole case was a set-up from the start. Reporters tracked down the gay guy who wanted a website that she refused as listed in the court filings. Turns out he's a straight guy, been married for 15 years, and is a web designer himself.
The court should never have taken the case. Courts generally do not take cases to decide hypothetical issues and this was entirely hypothetical. The SCOTUS which at one time was well regarded has become a joke in legal circles.
Last edited:
The ruling was based on an event that never happened.
Didn't conservatives used to rail against the "activist court"??
Apparently it doesn't count as activist if the SOC is willing to take on fake cases and make decisions brought to them by the billionaires who pay for their vacations.
Our judges say that's OK! They like queer jokes too!! Think I'll go roll a big joint...
And SCOTUS still can’t understand why they have a credibility problem. No one should feel compelled to respect any rulings from this shit stain of a “court”.
Between Roe v Wade and now this, I was concerned we were seeing the end of American jurisprudence. Afterall, isn't the job of SCOTUS to make final, binding rulings?
But then I liked it up and it turns out SCOTUS overturns it's own cases with sufficient regularity, that we're actually seeing them do it less often. So while I think this is a horribly partisan decision and SCOTUS has f'd up, I don't really think the overturning of its own previous precedent is still bad anymore.
And so if anyone says I'm subject to an echo chamber and blindly believe things without researching with an open mind in future, I'll point to this and say, "Nah. I had heard things that agreed with my world view and part of me wanted to be true, but I looked it up and it turned out to be wrong. So I accepted that."
But then I liked it up and it turns out SCOTUS overturns it's own cases with sufficient regularity, that we're actually seeing them do it less often. So while I think this is a horribly partisan decision and SCOTUS has f'd up, I don't really think the overturning of its own previous precedent is still bad anymore.
And so if anyone says I'm subject to an echo chamber and blindly believe things without researching with an open mind in future, I'll point to this and say, "Nah. I had heard things that agreed with my world view and part of me wanted to be true, but I looked it up and it turned out to be wrong. So I accepted that."
Except people aren't upset that the SC overturned their own decision, they're upset that some shady billionaire brought an entirely fake case to the court and they ruled on it.
Its bad enough that Alliance Defending Freedom can directly bring cases to the SC but the fact that the court ruled on an event that didn't happen to change laws nationally is shameful.
So basically: If I'm a bigot and I hate gays, I can't withhold services.
But if my pastor is a bigot and hates gays and I agree with him, I can do whatever I want.
If makes no sense. While America cossets religious groups and defers to them, at a certain point there has to be one set of rules for America. Not one set of rules for evangelicals or extreme Catholics and another set for everyone else.
I can only speak about myself, and that's what I did. And I was very clear I was only speaking for myself. To talk about "except other people" is to either strawman me or pull me into a while new debate, and whichever it is I'm not interested in either. My comment stands for what it is: an expression of my own thoughts and feelings.
That's a totally fair response, I'm just posting what else I've read on social media about the ruling and the general responses.
Does the U.S. have something similar to Canada where the high court can be asked to render an opinion on a hypothetical set of facts?
I can think of one significant example in Canada and that is the Clarity Act.
Clarity Act - Wikipedia
I can think of one significant example in Canada and that is the Clarity Act.
Clarity Act - Wikipedia
Only with respect to constitutional issues. They would not have taken the us case because there was no actual dispute. Having said that I also do not believe 5he SCOTUS should have either.
Can you point me to what convinced you of this?
I suspect it has a lot to do with how you define "overturning its own cases".
I'm just curious about the numbers you saw in this context. (That the Supreme Court has overturned itself before is uncontroversial, the question I have is about your assertion it is less common now and also what is being defined as "overturning". After all, Brown v Board of Education was never formally overturned but has been completely invalidated in spirit. Korematsu was never overturned either, I think.)
Last edited:
