a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by blackbootz
blackbootz  ·  1491 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

The opinion of the Court, and the many concurring opinions, are inscrutable. The Court doesn't seem to resolve anything, but goes out of its way to rule in favor of the discriminating baker, all the while qualifying its decision by saying "we think gay people deserve to be treated well" and "no new rights to discriminate on the basis of religion are created with today's decision".

What the fuck?

Why was this case selected? Why are the justices falling over themselves to acknowledge religious freedoms to discriminate via scripture? Why is Gorsuch name dropping law review articles?

I am sleepy.





OftenBen  ·  1490 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Because religion and politics ride in the same cart in the US.

The Mormon Church just came out against Marijuana legalization and they are spending BIG in support of that effort. Not coincidentally, the Mormons own big shares of many pharmaceutical companies.

user-inactivated  ·  1491 days ago  ·  link  ·  

there is a good discussion in the r/slatestarcodex culture war thread this week, including a couple of comments that directly address your first sentence. it was an interesting case for law enthusiasts

i can't figure out how to link the subthread because reddit apparently destroyed its UI recently

tacocat  ·  1491 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Why is Gorsuch a justice at all?

FTFY

Call me naive but I think one way or another this kind of discrimination will be outlawed. I'm not one of those dick head atheists who can quote (many) fucked up biblical verses that can be used to justify abhorrent things. I think anti miscegination laws were based on the Bible. I'm not super enthused about this ruling either. Seems like an attempt to tread lightly and effectively provide no answer in order not to offend either side too much. I think the justices were trying to serve two masters, but I think it will end up being mostly irrelevant due to its narrow scope. I could totally be wrong though. The supreme court can be like a black box of legal interpretation.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/imperfect-plaintiff

If you're into podcasts I think that's the one that deals with the case that struck down sodomy laws. The plaintiffs were pretty sketchy but the laws were so obviously unconstitutional that it didn't matter. I feel like this case was not so clear cut that the judges felt comfortable setting broad precedent with it and are either deferring to later legislation or waiting for a tighter case. Or are just assholes like Clarence Thomas and probably a couple others.

blackbootz  ·  1491 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I agree that the Court seems more aware of reputational damage than in previous Chief-Justiceships. Roberts feels like he's presiding over a Court that is pissing off the people more and more... and yet, they went out of their way here to select a case destined to piss lots of people off, and then rule in such a way so as to not actually give any one side a victory. It's the worst of both worlds. Torpedo it's reputation (during Pride month no less) but not actually give religious practitioners any substantive victory.

Know what opinion the Court issues when it realizes that, after granting cert., it doesn't want to issue an opinion?

    The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

    It is so ordered.

tacocat  ·  1491 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'd not even considered why they didn't just decline to hear that case which is a good question