"But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads?"
followed tags: 81
followed domains: 10
badges given: 19 of 21
member for: 1980 days
I haven't read Evicted but Desmond had an article about homeownership driving inequality that was fantastic.
The decision to abstain from pork preparation is not customer-discriminatory in the way a baker refusing to decorate a cake for a same-sex couple is.
This is... interesting. On the one hand, the role/religion inversion is useful in freeing up the observer from tribal-line identities (liberals automatically siding with the gay couple, conservatives with the baker).
On the other, a union between two consenting adults is in utterly unlike socially-sanctioned pedophilia.
I'm not sure how I feel. But there is a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, whether I like it or not.
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.
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.
Pubski is often my de facto self-check-in. Part journal, part commiseration, part celebration.
• My third semester back at college concluded yesterday. Grades haven't been officially posted, but by my estimation it'll be straights As. Woot!
• I netted $17k of the $40k so far in scholarships and grants that I applied for next year. Total cost of attendance is $26k, so I have a good feeling about taking on minimal debt my senior year. All cause for celebration.
• The Morgan Stanley internship starts soon. Which is great, money is getting really tight--I'm definitely not the brokest college student ever but I didn't do part-time work this semester and the runway is nearly all gone. This next month is going to be rough.
I can't wait to have a normal income.
Wait, what qualifies as feteshizing the attacks as political opportunities? Are you able to discern genuine public health concern manifest as calls for gun control from rabid anti-2A folks looking to... what, stick it to gun owners?