John Deering for July 01, 2023

Regression of the highest (‘lowest’) order.

Wow. Someone did not read the decision. The decision stated that the government cannot force someone to make a statement in violation of their religion. The government cannot compel speech – which is exactly what Colorado tried to do, then they were going to force a person to attend re-education to meet the government’s standard of speech, and also fine a person for refusing to take part in government sanctioned/ordered speech. And the left calls the right fascists. Seems there were a few governments about 80 years that compelled people to make statements against their beliefs…….or else.

The Supreme Court has been taken over by easily corruptible extremist conservative judges.

The founders, except for perhaps Ben Franklin, never would have dreamed of the highly compromised, immoral Republican Party.

The case of the web designer was made up. No gay couple asked to use her services…..

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html

All hail the corporate state…not!

What would they do if the lunch counter refused to serve the judges?

The Supreme Court seems determined to bring America back to the ’50’s. Not sure if it’s the 1950’s or 1850’s.

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision. But without lying, the left has nothing to say.

As with most things, beware the unintended consequence.

This joins the other excellent strips on SCOTUS and their regression of 100 years.

They opened the door for more official dismantling of what we thought was established and beneficial.

Remember when folks said that this SCROTUS would start to tear down the Constitution of the United States of America? Pepperidge Farm remembers

What if someone’s religion prevents them from recognizing miscegenation? That person can refuse to serve mixed race couples like Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

I suppose I am easily confused. Early one day SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional to factor in race when considering student admissions. That would be discrimination so admission boards are required to be color blind. Later that same day SCOTUS rules on a made up case funded by the Alliance Defending Freedom in which it says discrimination against LGBTQ persons is perfectly constitutional since the Bible says so. There is no criticism harsh enough to describe the unhinged hypocrisy of this court.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

As a gourmet cook, I serve what I consider art in my restaurant. It’s an expression of my creativity. Can I refuse service to same sex couples?

Tell me again how a ping-pong politically packed SCOTUS is good for the nation.

Wow, talk about a giant leap backward!

Thomas wants to be part of an excluded group again.

Hit the nail on the head, Mr Deering.

As Political Scientist Lane Crothers pointed out in a post:

Back to back days on the Supreme Court:

1. No, Harvard (a private institution) may not admit people based on their institutional choices.

2. Yes, private businesses can discriminate at will.

Why explains this? Originalism!

My religion tells me that I can discriminate against those who believe different things or came from a different place, or don’t look like me. And I strongly hold those beliefs. My supreme being sanctions my choosing who to discriminate against, and so does my supreme court.

That lunch counter sign could more accurately say, “Whites only”.

The Supreme Court’s conservatives are doing exactly what they claim to detest

In 2016, vice presidential candidate Mike Pence told voters that “Donald Trump will appoint men and women who will strictly construe the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.” The phrase “legislate from the bench” has long been trotted out by Republicans. George W. Bush used it, for example, when first nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court. It’s shorthand to attack what critics view as “judicial activism,” an accusation lobbed at judges who they believe exceed their power and meddle in matters that are better and ordinarily addressed by elected representatives.

And yet, one would be hard-pressed to find two phrases that more aptly describe the actions of the Supreme Court, including its three Trump appointees, than “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench.”

The court’s decision to throw out President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is merely the latest example. The issue at hand is the Biden administration’s interpretation of the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act. That law states the secretary of education “may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs … as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the White House put forward a plan to forgive $10,000 in student debt for Americans who make less than $125,000 a year and up to $20,000 for those with outstanding Pell grants.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-s-conservatives-are-doing-exactly-what-they-claim-to-detest/ar-AA1dijqA?

Right wingers lie, cheat and steal.

Reminds me of the signs that said, "No [members of racial group,] [members of religion,] [natives of country,] or dogs allowed.

I hope all those people who refused to vote for Hillary on the grounds that she was not leftist enough or that “there is no difference between her and Trump” are satisfied. That includes those who voted for Jill Stein, whose vote total exceeded Trump’s margin over Hillary in several states.

As much as I dislike this court, I don’t think that is the message here.

The NOT SO SUPREME court set up more discrimination

Bring back Dilbert.

I’m glad the court had the guts to finally deal with these decisions. It’s time to move on.

Here is a perfect defence of affirmative action that does not involve race at all: www.gregpalast.com/confessions-of-an-affirmative-action-baby/ subtitled "How an “undeserving” kid like me got admitted to Stanford".

For those who don’t know already, Palast is White and a Jew. He apparently (I didn’t know this) grew up in East LA, the “dead-end barrio of Sun Valley-Pacoima” where, according to Palast’s HS Principal, “that any of our students can speak English at all is a big deal”, much less Standard US English.

And some exceptionally interesting research since it began with a case that was the first to invalidate religious beliefs as delusions when used to benefit Black people.

[John] Townshend grew convinced at the end of his life that God would punish him if he did not free the enslaved people he owned and give them all of his property. But Townshend’s relatives challenged his final wishes in court, arguing that his decision had been the result of a delusion.

That 1848 case was the first U.S. appearance of what became known as the “insane delusion rule,” which remains grounds for contesting wills to this day. And Townshend v. Townshend itself has been cited in at least 70 other cases across the country — from New Hampshire to California — over the years, as recently as 2007.

It’s one of thousands of cases involving enslaved people that lawyers and judges continue to cite as good precedent, more than a century after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the U.S.

https://portside.org/2023-07-03/slave-cases-are-still-cited-good-law-across-us-team-aims-change