Melissa Gira Grant of the New Republic contacted Stewart, using the email and phone number included in the lawsuit. He denies having sent that request, pointing out that he is already married, to a woman.
Person whose name and phone number appears in lawsuit is contacted, denies making a request, is married to woman.
As an American, I look around today and realize that a polite insistence on "don’t feed the trolls" is in large part how we got where we’re at today.
That could very well be rewritten as "don’t challenge the ideas espoused by trolls."
So I think I'm going to continue to correct blatant misinformation, and if you don't like that, you can feel free to hover over my name and block me forever. AWESOME! 👍
I mean this case according to some who have a law background have called into question the standing on which this case was even brought forward. The initial request of the so called web developer does not even seem to exist as stated. It was an intial inquiry by a straight individual who did not even request a web page designed for a homosexual wedding. Nor has the individual who may or may not have made the offending request been a party to the case other than in name. The so called web developer also seems to have a questionable existence as they seem so deeply intermeshed with a religious conservative activist group that they seem part of the same entity. And could at a slightly closer look seen to be just a front entity for such activist group to trigger such a lawsuit.
The court should have passed on this case and it should have gone back down to a lower court and standing should have been better established. This case was just put together to create this type of ruling in a favorable court. Not a pursuit of justice or a clarifying of rights.
I am not a lawyer, and I know next to nothing about the law but this case stinks to high heaven.
It baffles me how a fake case can even have any legitimacy with the court. Yet here we are...SCOTUS is even more a joke now. It's just so tragic their bad faith & buffoonery affects so many people .
I watched this and Reich's video on distinguishing patriotism from nationalism, and honestly it still seems kind of like a contrived, arbitrary distinction. Ultimately it seems like the former is on a feeling of duty to serve a given country, while the latter is pride in it- but either way, the object of the affection is the country, the state. I could be wrong, but I can't immediately think of any given national entity that is actually worthy of that kind of unmitigated veneration- they're all a mix of good and bad, and for all of the socialized goods they provide they also monopolize power and control in oftentimes highly unjust ways.
Without watching the video, for me Patriotism was always supporting our country striving for improvements and finding pride in our accomplishments while correcting our errors.
Nationalism is just the our country is the best noone else is better and fuck anyone else. Also we never make mistakes and all we do is the beat.
A sort of extremist no thought approach to our country just because we were born here.
Patriotism requires thought nuance and a desire to build a better neighborhood so to speak.
I don't really see the constituonal basis here. Racial discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so there's an obvious angle for calling affirmative action unconditional. That doesn't really exist with legacy admissions.
It's still stupid and shouldn't be a thing, but it's not the job of the Courts to ensure an optimal college admissions system. Saying that it's de facto racial discrimination is a pretty big stretch.
The argument is that legacy admissions are a criterion being used in lieu of race to achieve racial discrimination. Similar systems were an aggressive part of the Jim Crowe South to prevent blacks from voting when they couldn't make skin color-specific rules anymore, where you would have to prove literacy or your grandfather's ability to vote to get a vote in since they knew that no black person could pass those tests.
It's not the strongest case, but it isn't unreasonable and it has a rational basis. I'm skeptical that even a disinterested court would accept the logic on its face and know that the current court will just wallow in its hypocrisy, but I at least understand the principle.
The defense to it is that these elite universities actively desire diversity, so clearly they are not using legacy admits as a proxy for racial discrimination. There's plenty of evidence that there is a different, corrupt-but-legal purpose for these legacy systems that is not racially motivated.
edit: On the flip-side, if indirectly discriminatory policies like these ARE allowed, it gives the universities a clear path forward to continuations of their AA policies. They just need to replace the race of their applicants with proxies for race that are allowed. Theoretically, this logic could force a standoff -- either policies that indirectly have discriminatory outcomes (defined by who?) are illegal or they aren't. Or else you'd have to somehow prove intention to discriminate before you could find a policy illegal, which is another very complex can of worms that the elite universities could probably get around.
And so, like with everything around this case, it likely won't change any real behavior from the elite universities but will seriously fuck with less affluent ones.
If Biden packs the court, the pubies will do the same, but worse, at their first opportunity. I have no good solutions, but impeach the shitheads seems like a good thing to do.
Yes, the SCROTUS is destroying democracy, but packing the court will only create more fights.
The GOP has already packed the courts, and Trump has already said he’ll nominate more SCOTUS judges if he’s elected. The fight is already here, but it’s entirely one-sided.
"packing the court" specifically refers to adding more justices because you don't like the current ones. the last time that the court's number of judges changed was in 1869, when it went up from eight to nine.
So, I think it's fairly safe to say, no, the republicans have not yet packed the court. McConnell, however, has definitely played some hypocritical bullshit during Obama's term, blocking nominations from being confirmed specifically to allow a republican nomination, and that probably needs to be fixed as well as adding more direct oversight and ethics rules. (and I mean rules- not "guidelines")
They will already do everything they can get away with, without worrying about the other side is doing. If the courts can be packed then they will pack them regardless of what dems do.
Fort Lauderdale City Commissioner Steve Glassman, whose district includes the downtown area, said in an interview that he “would not be anywhere else right now.” “It’s really important for the world to know that Fort Lauderdale is not Florida.”
Not Florida? He was asked.
“The way the world is looking at Florida right now with all of the hateful legislation, it’s important for Fort Lauderdale to take a stand and say ‘this is not us. This is not who we are.’ And I’m really disgusted by the mean-spirited and hateful legislation that’s come out of Tallahassee the last couple of years.”
Repulicans are not playing fair. They stole an Obama pick, then laughed about it.
Packing the courts would undo this corrupt court. Many are already bought and say they are their own enforcement on the rules they make.
Young people doen't deserve to live in a Christian Nation and the courts are planning to do this, with replublicans help.
Politics
Oldest