Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

The Roberts Court: fraud (not very well) disguised as jurisprudence

The fraud that is the jurisprudence of the 6-justice Roberts Court hit depths, last term, not seen in over two centuries. Possibly the Worst Court Ever, the Taney Court (1836-64) in a 7-2 opinion, by the CJ himself, in Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), solidified racism. 1/5

The issue: “Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country” & “sold as slaves” be & be entitled to all the rights of a US citizen? Taney’s answer: no: fr 1789 Black ppl were “considered as a subordinate & inferior class of beings” “subjugated by the dominant 2/5

race” and “regarded as beings of an inferior order” & unfit to associate w/the “white race, either in social or political relations.” 60 U.S. at 404-05. At least the Court tried to stay w/in bounds of Art III Case or Controversy Clause: 1) SCOTUS doesn’t issue advisory opinions & 3/5

2) Parties must have standing. But the 6 GOP justices that are the Roberts Court were paid to do things & do things that will last. With rat smarts in high gear they issued 303 Creative, LLC v Elenis, 21-476, and held that a business can refuse business to LGBTQ people. 4/5

That the case was bogus has been described, extensively. We no longer operate under “Rule of Law,” but on rules drawn up by cynics whose values are ad hoc & thus “transactional morality” - i.e. not “moral at all. 5/5

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Comment by pogden297 on July 15, 2023 at 9:45am: The court held "that a business can refuse business to LGBTQ people."

That's not what the court held. The court said that people who are engaged in in creative lines of business, such as in this case a web designer, cannot be forced to create a product that conflicts with their beliefs. That the First Amendment free speech clause protects that person's work. Courts have historically drawn a line between that type of artistic work, protected by the First Amendment, and one where the business is merely serving someone a product for example.

Let's say that that same web designer had a set of wedding website templates that it offered for sale. The Colorado state civil rights law would have applied if the web designer said he or she wasn't going to sell that template to someone who is LGBTQ. Where the First Amendment is triggered is when the LGBTQ couple attempts to make the web designer CREATE something especially for them.

Now, returning to the issue of a business refusing to serve (as opposed to a business owner being required to create something) the LGBTQ couple, whether that is allowed or not depends on whether the state or locality has a civil rights law that prohibits LGBTQ discrimination. The Court has not reinterpreted the federal Civil Rights Act to include LGBTQ discrimination thus far. But the SCT decision regarding the web designer didn't deal with that issue.

The Court got the issue exactly right although you may have a point about standing. However, I would point out if the case went the other way, I highly doubt that liberals would have been complaining about standing. I find it ironic that liberals now talk about how important SCT precedent is when they spent years trying to tear down SCT precedent they didn't like.

Finally, I would point out that attorneys who argue the other side in these cases are huge hypocrites. We as legal professionals are allowed to turn down representation to clients whose beliefs and actions contradict our moral principles. We can even turn down clients based on the clients' sexual orientation or their gender or their race. Yet, those same attorneys want to deny that right to other professionals who are engaged in creative pursuits. Of course there are other attorneys who can represent those people. And you know what? There are other web designers who would be more than happy to create a website for that LGBTQ couple. This is all about forcing people to do something they don't believe in.

The SCT was 100% right in drawing the obvious line between someone being forced to create a product and the mere provision of that product.