Progressives need to stop pretending that packing the court would open the door for conservatives to do the same.
At this point, conservatives will simply do the same if they lose control of it. They do not care about law and order and they do not care about mores. They only care about oppressing the weak and solidifying their power. The SCOTUS is a political institution that needs immediate reform.
We're racing to doomsday and they're leaning on the accelerator while progressives argue about whether it's safe to turn off the ignition.
Progressives know damn well that Republicans have already stacked the court. It's the establishment Democrats that are whining about an imaginary retaliation. You know, the centrists who are basically Republican lite, the assholes who whine about how extreme the Left-most parts of the party are, while ignoring how extreme the entire right-wing has always been.
We've seen this shit play out dozens of times in the past, the centrists say we progressives need to moderate ourselves to appeal more broadly, that we need to compromise or lose support. The reality plays out that any compromise we make is what loses us our support, and the centrists then side with the extremists on the right to hurt us more.
we shouldve been packing the court already. but nope democrats dont wanna rock the boat. something about when they go low we get high. no sorry, when they go low kick em in the fucking mouth.
Yeah, with what majority? There are only 47 Democrats and 2 independents who are interested in any politics left of center. Manchin, techincally a Democrat, will only vote for his personal, center-right beliefs, and Sinema, the only remaining independent has shown she's in it solely for personal financial gain. There was no time in which there were enough Democrats, excepting the two aforementioned posers, to add seats to the court or confirm any justice without some money changing hands. If it weren't about power or money we could have had 52 states (DC and PR) and at least 3 more truly democratic senators (considering the outside chance of a 50/50 split in PR). But that was impossible because it would have reduced the power of Manchin and Sinema, and that's the only reason for them to exist.
Like how the Dems won't get rid of the filibuster, while the Reps got rid of it to push through the judicial nominees. Or how the Dems did absolutely nothing about the Rep Senate ignoring Obamas nominee and then rushing through their own at the last minute to stack SCOTUS.
Dems just can't admit that they need to play on the Reps level because the other team openly cheating while you take the high ground just tolerating the intolerant.
It didn't originally exist in the Senate either, but the worse Vice President we ever had, decided that the Senate had too many rules and got rid of most of them. One of those original rules allowed any senator to call for a vote, even when someone was on the floor speaking.
This rule, called the previous question for some reason, still exists in the House, along with the Hour Rule which limits the time a Representative can spend holding the floor.
So we already have the framework to end the filibuster, but conservatives on both sides of the aisle like it because it means that they can thwart progress.
Of course, when it gets in the way, Republicans quickly carve out an exception for themselves, like they did with Judicial appointments.
The Senate is a useless and bad institution anyway. It's the US House of Lords, where land is being given rights to vote over people.
If we're swinging magic wands anyway, just get rid of it and give its duties to the House. Or maybe return it to being a governor-appointed advisory board that only has proforma powers over legislation that the House can override.
At a minimum, make it so Senators can cast as many votes as they have constituents. Do the same thing for reps in the House.
this has been going the last few years although they might be ramping up and its not just that group but a recent conservative tactic to go for local stuff where not many people are motivated to run and less of the electorate look into it and vote.
Fucking hell, just reminds me again that if they lose the election anyway, the state can just come in and replace the entire elected board as they see fit--see Houston TX for example. Why the fuck did I put effort into researching and voting for not-insane, education-experienced school board members just to watch them get removed against the will of the people in the district?
False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.
The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.
However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.
Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Ahh, about that, well… welcome to the new Robert’s Court, where the facts are made up and the precedent doesn’t matter.
From courtroom to Congress, it seems these days conservatives only look at getting things their way, with consequences & the nation at large be damned. At times there’s startlingly little ideological consistency being proffered to justify their actions, and sometimes they even punish other conservatives to force getting their way (see recent rejection of a multitude of bills in Texas because the governor didn’t get his favored legislation through, for instance). I don’t see how this can be kept up long term… it’s like venture capitalism has infected the government and we’re working on burning out all the assets still.
Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.
Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.
Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.
Sex is a protected class. There's no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.
Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.
and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.
They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.
The conservative justices declaring which jobs do and don't show human creativity and expression was not on my Christofascist dystopia bingo card, but probably should've been.
You sweet summer child, how can you possibly think Obergefell isn't going to get challenged and killed by these same anti-queer justices?
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote the dissent to it. Gay marriage would still be federally unprotected if they had their way, and they have since netted 2 more allies to their cause to make it happen.
Is cooking not an expressive service... what about a really good mechanic with some flair... it Def covers lawyers and would most likely apply to ER nurses and doctors... this is fucked when you follow it to their intended conclusion...
Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
Except for the fact that nobody was actually asking her to do a website for gay couple. The client she named in the suit isn't gay and is already marries and is a web designer.
It was a bullshit case put in front of the supreme court just so they can attack gay people again. The supreme court wants to disenfranchise gays, trans, women and other minorities.
Politics
Oldest