Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

SCOTUS

#801

Post by Maybenaut »

bob wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:34 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:51 pmAlito did not “suggest[] that if the LGBT+ community wants equality — a Black Santa should be forced to take pictures with kids dressed in KKK robes.” He’s doing what the Supreme Court has done since its inception - he’s trying to figure out the contours of the parties’ position on the issue. This type of sound-bite reporting irritates the snot out of me.
Yes; and no.

Yes, this is the classic method of stretching a proposed rule to its extremes, to see if it still works at the margins.

But: there are better methods to do so without this kind of trolling. Its ... "colorfulness" was very intentional.

It is also kind of dumb, as comparing LGBT+ customers (desiring wedding-related services, presumably) to the KKK is not only offensive, but inapt, as I don't believe a Santa actor (of any color) would refuse on religious grounds. Nor would the Santa actor be denying services based on status in a protected class, i.e., the entire point of this SCOTUS case.
Well, that's exactly what the counsel said in response to the question. I guess I'm just not as bothered by this as the rest of the world appears to be. Because I don't think Alito was actually suggesting anything.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

SCOTUS

#802

Post by humblescribe »

I'll let the legal community debate the artfulness of what Alito did.

Chez moi, there were dozens of other analogies or comparisons that he could have used to develop his concerns. Or stretch the arguments. Or to advance that time-honored legal strategy of reductio ad absurdum.

To me this is proof that he has no business being in his current position. I am mildly surprised that he used the term "Black Santa" when he could have used a more derogatory term to get his point across. What restrained him, I wonder?
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#803

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:25 pmBecause I don't think Alito was actually suggesting anything.
Obviously I can't read minds, but I'm content to believe Alito didn't "accidentally" "suggest" LGBT+ members are just lib Klansmen. (While staking some plausible deniability ground.)
Image ImageImage
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: retired lawyer; yoga enthusiast
Verified:

SCOTUS

#804

Post by SuzieC »

Even if he only meant to pose a hypothetical stretching the bounds of the argument, what an offensive and stupid one. Alito's Black Santa/Klan hypothetical will lead every media report of the case. Maybe that's what he wants.

ETA: Actually it's even worse. He interrupted a serious question from Justice Jackson to chuckle--yes, he chuckled--about black kids in Klan robes.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#805

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... alito-leak
The Real Supreme Court News Isn’t the Alleged Alito Leak

Schenck also described to the Times what he called a “Ministry of Emboldenment,” which he directed and aimed toward some conservative justices on the Court “to ‘embolden the justices’ to lay the legal groundwork for an eventual reversal” of Roe v. Wade.

According to the Times, Schenck encouraged allies and wealthy donors to his organization to “invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs,” and to contribute an estimated minimum of $125,000 to the Supreme Court Historical Society and “then mingle with justices at its functions.” Schenck also “ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access.”

“You can position yourself in a special category with regard to the Justices,” Schenck told the paper. “You can gain access, have conversations, share prayer.”

If true, the leak would be a breach of trust that underscores how few ethical rules currently bind members of the nation’s highest court — the only court in the country without a code of conduct. Schenck’s broader campaign also casts in a harsh light the extent to which some justices have cozied with activists and politicians — often behind closed doors. Schenck’s “emboldenment” ministry sounds very much like what lobbyists do with politicians all the time — but judges are not supposed to behave like politicians.

We may never know the extent to which Schenck’s activities had an impact on Alito. In fact, it may be unknowable because what we do know is that judges — like all people — often do a bad job of assessing their own biases. Judicial ethics rules are partly about stopping misbehavior, but they also often serve as a safeguard: to help judges avoid potentially compromising situations in the first place.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#806

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://ij.org/press-release/family-ask ... stigation/
Family Asks Supreme Court to Hold CPS Officer Accountable for Retaliatory Investigation

Today, a Missouri family partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit public interest law firm, to ask the Supreme Court to hold a child protective services officer accountable for launching an unwarranted, retaliatory investigation after the family criticized the county. The case asks the Supreme Court to recognize that retaliatory investigations are not above constitutional scrutiny.

The case before the court started with a tragedy.

In May 2018, a family’s 15-year-old son was sexually abused by a Scott County, Missouri, sheriff’s deputy. After the deputy was arrested and charged, the family threatened to sue the county for allowing the deputy—who had been disciplined in previous law enforcement jobs—to serve on the force.

Then, a few weeks later, the family heard a knock at their front door and found a juvenile officer and two highway patrol troopers accompanying a child-welfare investigator from the Scott County Children’s Division. The child-welfare investigator informed the parents that they were being formally investigated for child neglect, claiming that an anonymous source called the state’s child abuse tipline and reported the family.

What unfolded next only served to retraumatize the already-victimized family.

For nine months, the family lived under a cloud of uncertainty and frustration. When they were finally exonerated, and settled with the county out of court, they sued the investigator in federal court, arguing that she’d unconstitutionally retaliated against them after they criticized the county.

In her defense, the investigator argued, predictably, that she was protected by the controversial doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which gives government officials a blank check to violate the Constitution, unless there is a case in their jurisdiction that already declared identical actions to be unconstitutional. But the district court disagreed and denied qualified immunity to the investigator. In the court’s view, the Constitution did not allow the investigator “to make findings of child neglect in retaliation for parents making claims against county officials related to the sexual abuse of their child.”

The investigator appealed and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and gave the investigator immunity. The three-judge panel found that “[e]ven assuming that the facts in the complaint are true,” the court has “never recognized a retaliatory-investigation claim of this kind.” In other words, according to the court, there is no such thing as a constitutional protection from retaliatory investigation.
This was a press release which is an exemption to the four para rule. :biggrin:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#807

Post by Gregg »

I heard snippets of the day and far more offensive to me was Justice Taney Gorsich being a dick calling the Colorado compliance class "re-education classes" and when the Attorney for the state tried to push back, slapping him down pretty hard.

Pardon my French but he can fuck all the way off.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

SCOTUS

#808

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:05 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:25 pmBecause I don't think Alito was actually suggesting anything.
Obviously I can't read minds, but I'm content to believe Alito didn't "accidentally" "suggest" LGBT+ members are just lib Klansmen. (While staking some plausible deniability ground.)
Bingo.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#809

Post by AndyinPA »

Gregg wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:43 pm I heard snippets of the day and far more offensive to me was Justice Taney Gorsich being a dick calling the Colorado compliance class "re-education classes" and when the Attorney for the state tried to push back, slapping him down pretty hard.

Pardon my French but he can fuck all the way off.
:yeahthat:

I heard that. It was appalling.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6692
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

SCOTUS

#810

Post by pipistrelle »

I needed context. The National Review!
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gor ... n-program/
“Mr. Phillips had to go through a reeducation program, did he not?,” Gorsuch asked Colorado solicitor general Eric Olson. He retorted that it was actually training to educate him about Colorado law.

“Some would call that a reeducation program,” Gorsuch said.

“I strongly disagree,” the defense attorney replied.

“Isn’t religious belief a protected characteristic?,” Gorsuch asked, to which Olson conceded, “yes.”
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

SCOTUS

#811

Post by Ben-Prime »

humblescribe wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:59 pm I'll let the legal community debate the artfulness of what Alito did.

Chez moi, there were dozens of other analogies or comparisons that he could have used to develop his concerns. Or stretch the arguments. Or to advance that time-honored legal strategy of reductio ad absurdum.

To me this is proof that he has no business being in his current position. I am mildly surprised that he used the term "Black Santa" when he could have used a more derogatory term to get his point across. What restrained him, I wonder?
He remebered the scene in 'A Blazing Saddles Christmas Special' where someone tried to excuse him as saying "the Santa is near!"
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

SCOTUS

#812

Post by neonzx »

What does a mall Santa gig job have to do with LGBTQ rights? And when is the last time you saw children roaming around in KKK robes with pointy hoods?

Is this back to wedding photographers, cake bakers and B&B inn keepers again? But they had to crank up the decibel level to absurd. BLACK SANTA having to sit KKK children on his lap for photos! THE HORROR!! COULD YOU IMAGINE?

Logic fallacy. "Slippery Slope" argument.

Sounds about right from an internet legal scholar.

Oh, what, It came from a sitting Supreme Court Justice? :?
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14352
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#813

Post by RTH10260 »

What services need to be provided to black mermaids? :twisted:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#814

Post by Gregg »

And when is the last time you saw children roaming around in KKK robes with pointy hoods?
I would not bet against that being found in the South these days, and not just on Haloween.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

SCOTUS

#815

Post by Suranis »

neonzx wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:32 am What does a mall Santa gig job have to do with LGBTQ rights? And when is the last time you saw children roaming around in KKK robes with pointy hoods
At a guess, his point was that the mall Santa has to serve everyone, no matter how their dress or other aspects might offend him personally.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#816

Post by raison de arizona »

Suranis wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:47 pm
neonzx wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:32 am What does a mall Santa gig job have to do with LGBTQ rights? And when is the last time you saw children roaming around in KKK robes with pointy hoods
At a guess, his point was that the mall Santa has to serve everyone, no matter how their dress or other aspects might offend him personally.
KKK membership isn't a protected class, unlike LGBTQ. So no, mall Santa can tell them to take a hike.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

SCOTUS

#817

Post by neeneko »

raison de arizona wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:00 pm KKK membership isn't a protected class, unlike LGBTQ. So no, mall Santa can tell them to take a hike.
I read his comment as a subtle reminder of their stance that LGBT is a 'choice', just like being racist trash.
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

SCOTUS

#818

Post by Frater I*I »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:36 pm :snippity:
This was a press release which is an exemption to the four para rule. :biggrin:
At the end of the day Third Grandma is still a lawyer....finding the loopholes for us here at the Fogboz.... :biggrin:
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#819

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

YEP!!!!!!
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#820

Post by bob »

Sit down: You may find yourself agreeing with blind squirrel Larry Klayman:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

SCOTUS

#821

Post by Phoenix520 »

So if they rule that Xtian bakers can discriminate against LBGTQ+ because it goes against their religion, when can the rest of us start discriminating against Xtianists? Shirley it’s not a one way deal?
/snarkasm
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14352
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#822

Post by RTH10260 »

I didn't pick up the scoop of the story, but somewhere (state of VA?) there is a restaurant / bar run by LGBT staffers that are said to refuse to serve xian customers. There may be a complaint in the doing if I understood that clip correctly.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#823

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/202 ... oundation/
A restaurant in Richmond last week canceled a reservation for a private event being held by a conservative Christian organization, citing the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery, a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including “Top Chef” and “Chopped.” “Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”

:snippity:

...While it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race or religion, the restaurant’s refusal had to do with the group’s actions, said Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas. “It’s about the overall positions and policies the group has taken — it’s not about Christian vs. non-Christian,” she said. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, D.C., Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14352
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#824

Post by RTH10260 »

H/T for locating the article!
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

SCOTUS

#825

Post by Dr. Ken »

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”