|
They were obviously being sarcastic to say it was the tipping point. Presumably against the posters trying to spin a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling into Dems Bad just because Roberts trolled the dems with a Pelosi quote.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I disagree. I think they would have made the same ruling. That was just icing on the cake for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Kagan’s dissent in the student loan case is blistering, oh man I see we’re back in the age of Epic Dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:I see we’re back in the age of Epic Dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I disagree. I think they would have made the same ruling. That was just icing on the cake for them. The court loves quoting the opposition. Gorsuch used a Norfolk Southern press release about how much business they do in Pennsylvania to establish personal jurisdiction in that case. E: The Speaker of the House is always going to claim that Congress has more power than the president. The X-man cometh fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Welp, the designer won the case and discrimination is fine now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:I see we’re back in the age of Epic Dissents. The one thing Scalia was good for - a good laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:E: The Speaker of the House is always going to claim that Congress has more power than the president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Well, this sucks incredibly badly. Forgiveness was going to make a pretty massive difference for us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Ok, so time to pump out all sorts of campaign ads in 2024 that say "ok, you want student loan debt relief? Better get your rear end to the polls and vote democrat."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:It’s a very weird ruling because they narrowly defined free speech as print, including on a website, but things like decorating and cake making are not free speech, per their ruling, so they still have to bake cakes etc. so I guess as a gay person I’ll just be sure to request they don’t print anything on my decorations or cakes and they can’t do poo poo about it? Eh, it's internally consistent. The idea is that writing a message is an exercise of speech even if you're just writing what someone else told you to, so compelling someone to write "Congratulations on your gay marriage" is violating their free speech rights. It's not a right to avoid serving same-sex couples in general, just a right to not have to say or write words that might imply approval of gay marriage. It's a bullshit stretch of the First Amendment, yes, but it's internally consistent bullshit. As you said, you should be fine as long as you don't ask them to say, write, or print any words. The ruling sucks, but it's not a blank check to discriminate however they please. In fact, Masterpiece Cakeshop got burned by pretty much exactly that earlier this year. Someone called them up asking them to make a pink-and-blue cake with no message, the cake shop initially agreed but then turned it down once they found out the cake was to celebrate a gender transition, and then they got sued and lost because there was no message on the cake and therefore no exercise of speech. Granted, that one hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet, but that ruling is consistent with the current court's jurisprudence and with the ruling in this case. Evil Fluffy posted:Imagine if Biden didn't suck and just issued a statement to the effect of "debt forgiveness is moving forward, gently caress the illegitimate majority and their opinions." He can issue whatever statement he wants, but no one is going to comply with a presidential order that's been ruled unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Kagan’s dissent in the student loan case is blistering, oh man I'm assuming by blistering you mean the effect on the skin of people with student loans when they flee Chicago after it's hit with a dirty bomb? Then yes, it was very blistering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:The one thing Scalia was good for - a good laugh. The best part of Kagan's dissent is where she quotes Scalia's book on textual interpretation back at the majority. What a lovely day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Ok, so time to pump out all sorts of campaign ads in [whatever election year] that say "ok, you want [x]? Better get your rear end to the polls and vote democrat." "x" has been so many things over the last many decades we've been told this, and more often than not they never take action when it works. This is not to say you shouldn't vote, or that you shouldn't vote Democrat, just that it's so exhausting for fundraising and "go vote!" to be the only responses to the continued, actual march of regressives in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
YorexTheMad posted:"x" has been so many things over the last many decades we've been told this, and more often than not they never take action when it works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In fact, Masterpiece Cakeshop got burned by pretty much exactly that earlier this year. Someone called them up asking them to make a pink-and-blue cake with no message, the cake shop initially agreed but then turned it down once they found out the cake was to celebrate a gender transition, and then they got sued and lost because there was no message on the cake and therefore no exercise of speech. Granted, that one hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet, but that ruling is consistent with the current court's jurisprudence and with the ruling in this case. That's why I think the ADF's next step is going to argue that the colors of a cake like that are expressing a message that they disagree with, so it's totally speech. And since you can refuse to write/say things you don't agree with, that means no more trans cake! Boom! Like in opening arguments, some on the conservative side said "well, you wouldn't say that someone is obligated to write things in favor of the KKK," and while comparing LGBT acceptance to that is laughable, it's true that refusing to write a website about how the Holocaust didn't happen is, in most peoples' minds, totally logical. But what if they pay you to make t-shirts with burning crosses on them? That's still messaging, right? Like, I dunno, I'm about the furthest from a legal scholar as someone can be, but I've been following that sniveling fucker Mat Staver and the ADF for a long time. Their end goal is bringing back sodomy laws, so my mind has been racing trying to see their road map to getting that in front of this court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Theory about the affirmative action case. Ianal. Universities are known for being left leaning & liberal. Court cases, and to a larger degree scotus cases, have two fiercely opposed parties. Harvard is known for wealthy connected students, keeping families in power, its business school and law school. This whole case was essentially pageantry, with one of the most racist & $ driven schools showing "we abused this law for our benefit" as their "defense", and now the law has been removed. By using Harvard, schools that were not abusing it, schools that could argue in favor of its effectiveness never even get a say. This was never a real debate, it was two angleds of the same side putting on a show to push for their continued protection of the wealthy, white, ruling class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Love this court https://twitter.com/joshchafetz/status/1674785783851655168?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA Happy Pride Month!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
The value of dissents is for the future, mostly. They help future generations of lawyers and judges evaluate the merits of a ruling in light of their most strenuous counter-arguments, rather than on their own, which is particularly useful if those rulings are extremely bullshit. There's also historical value in documenting, in exacting detail, that the most morally repugnant rulings weren't "products of their time," but products of political power in the face of informed opposition. That's little comfort to those of us here in the present still grappling with all of the ways the court is dead-set on inflicting suffering, but it's worth doing. Love to live in the era of a court giving the Lochner crew a run for their money!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Doesn’t Thomas literally believe in the Lochner holding? Like, doesn’t he actually think that ordinary economic regulations violate due process?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
So does this ruling mean that anyone can refuse to do business with a member of a protected class if they claim to hold strongly held religious convictions and dealing with that protected class would somehow injure them? Can I refuse now to deal with people of the Jewish faith? Can i refuse to serve non whites at my restaurant? Can I kick LGBT folks out of my barber shop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Yeah I imagine that someone is going to mount a direct challenge to public accommodation laws now
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So does this ruling mean that anyone can refuse to do business with a member of a protected class if they claim to hold strongly held religious convictions and dealing with that protected class would somehow injure them? No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
nessin posted:I'm assuming by blistering you mean the effect on the skin of people with student loans when they flee Chicago after it's hit with a dirty bomb? Then yes, it was very blistering. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Kagan uses the Chicago nuke analogy in her dissent
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. Only if you claim your cooking or barbering are expressive speech, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So does this ruling mean that anyone can refuse to do business with a member of a protected class if they claim to hold strongly held religious convictions and dealing with that protected class would somehow injure them? No, you can't kick LGBT folks out of your barber shop, but you can refuse to shave "I ♥ GAY MARRIAGE" into someone's head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Only if you claim your cooking or barbering are expressive speech, no? If I draw pictures with ketchup on the food I serve does it count?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:If I draw pictures with ketchup on the food I serve does it count? Probably. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
That’s the great thing it’s purposely left vague to be open for people to start bringing those cases up! Is use of colors to convey a message considered expressive speech? What about writing “Just Married!” on a cake for gay people, isn’t that print? Does someone buying clothing at your shop convey being expressive in support of their gender expression when you hold beliefs it’s wrong? If I’m against inter-racial couples does being compelled to serve one during a Valentine’s Day event violate my expressive speech against my sincerely held beliefs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, you can't kick LGBT folks out of your barber shop, but you can refuse to shave "I ♥ GAY MARRIAGE" into someone's head. I guarantee with the way that it's being reported, by both sides, a lot of businesses are going to THINK they can just kick LGBTs out just for being gay. Then, when they're inevitably sued, the ADF gets another juicy case that's likely to go their way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Since the “creative expression” associated with the supposed “message” added by the cake-maker in making a cake with the names of two men on it is so incredibly minor there’s a lot of wiggle room to say “anything even remotely adjacent to serving someone you have sincere bigoted feelings towards is coerced expression”. Does your business talk to customers? Sounds like speech to me!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Isn't there already a precedent that money is a form of speech, and so political donations are totally fine? If money is speech and we use this precedent that speech can't be coerced or compel one to "create messages" that act against their beliefs, it's not that big a stretch to allow people to discriminate whatever groups they want on the basis that monetary transactions themselves are a kind of speech in terms of commerce. Or at least, it's less of a jump than it was before, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, you can't kick LGBT folks out of your barber shop, but you can refuse to shave "I ♥ GAY MARRIAGE" into someone's head. Or let's pick a related and more likely example - what is the difference between this ruling and a stylist refusing to cut a trans woman's hair in a style that they consider too "feminine"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Theory about the affirmative action case. Ianal. No, there was not an elaborate conspiracy by Harvard to set up a test case in control of both sides in favor of an abstracted class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Since we're talking about SCOTUS' ruling on student loan forgiveness... Not everyone deserves to have their student loans forgiven: https://twitter.com/Biaggi4NY/status/1674797787563847680 She and her husband make over $400k a year (as reported to the public when she ran for public office) and purchased a mansion for $1.1 million. I don't even know how her loan balance is possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1674847810934407185?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:If I draw pictures with ketchup on the food I serve does it count? It counts for the ketchup-drawing and nothing else. If they order a batch of fries will no ketchup, you still have to serve them. Ershalim posted:Isn't there already a precedent that money is a form of speech, and so political donations are totally fine? If money is speech and we use this precedent that speech can't be coerced or compel one to "create messages" that act against their beliefs, it's not that big a stretch to allow people to discriminate whatever groups they want on the basis that monetary transactions themselves are a kind of speech in terms of commerce. Or at least, it's less of a jump than it was before, no? Not really, no. Monetary transactions in support of political causes are speech, but that doesn't mean that taking money from someone constitutes support of their political aims. Crunch Buttsteak posted:I guarantee with the way that it's being reported, by both sides, a lot of businesses are going to THINK they can just kick LGBTs out just for being gay. Then, when they're inevitably sued, the ADF gets another juicy case that's likely to go their way. If the Court wanted to declare discrimination against gay people to be okay regardless of context, they probably would have done so in this case. If the Court makes a ruling that's different from you expect, that doesn't mean it's some clever chess move to set up for the future or create a bizarre loophole. Sometimes we just forget that the justices are human beings with their own personal beliefs and positions, and while their general points of view generally line up with the party that appointed them, that doesn't necessarily mean they share the views of the most extreme wing of the party on every single issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Not really, no. Monetary transactions in support of political causes are speech, but that doesn't mean that taking money from someone constitutes support of their political aims. Isn't "queer people shouldn't be allowed to participate in society" a political belief? So if someone is refusing to take money on that basis, why wouldn't that be a protected action here? I guess I'm not understanding the distinction between "not performing a service" and "not performing a service with creative intent." Denial of a service doesn't necessarily imply denial of any service, but the legal ground between the two doesn't seem like it's going to hold steady to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Since we're talking about SCOTUS' ruling on student loan forgiveness... Saying "not everyone deserves to have their student loans forgiven" is just a gateway to means testing, which is 99% of the time just going to be used as an administrative cudgel going in the opposite direction, against those who actually need it. People like this either won't notice their debt being forgiven or are uncommon enough that it doesn't matter. Just let programs help people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:24
|
|