Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 405: Pride Month Comes Before the Fall

(+) Yeah! (+)

Thorn posted...

On the LGBTQ front. 6-3 party line ruling that the First Amendment can't require a wedding website designer to make ones for gay marriages. This is the case where it turns out the website person may have faked her "injury" by creating the man she claims asked her to make a website because when contacted by journalists he said he never heard of it and was married to a woman at the time of the complaint.

How is this case not thrown out after realizing the whole situation was fabricated?

Maniac64 posted...

How is this case not thrown out after realizing the whole situation was fabricated?

I don't think that was uncovered until after it was decided

I mean, as a matter of record, it was decided 15 minutes ago so technically not true.

Sure, I guess I should have said heard. That would need to come up in arguments

Maniac64 posted...

How is this case not thrown out after realizing the whole situation was fabricated?

Oh I can explain this. It's because the current court is corrupt, illegitimate, and only exists to be a weapon for the republican party. Hope this helps.

masterplum posted...

Sure, I guess I should have said heard. That would need to come up in arguments

Why?

If someone was waiting on a jury decision when it came out all the evidence was falsified I'm pretty sure they would throw out the case immediately rather than wait for the jury. And they certainly wouldn't let a guilty verdict by that jury stand.

Actually better example. If in a personal injury case right after the closing statements the plaintiff jumped out of their wheelchair and revealed they had faked their injury I doubt the judge is going to shrug and say "darn too bad that didn't come out in arguments. Oh well I award the plaintiff a million dollars for their fake injuries."

Maniac64 posted...

Why?

If someone was waiting on a jury decision when it came out all the evidence was falsified I'm pretty sure they would throw out the case immediately rather than wait for the jury. And they certainly wouldn't let a guilty verdict by that jury stand.

You would need to investigate if those allegations are true

In the same vein where a defense attorney doing their job badly and not submitting evidence doesn't immediately change the outcome if the other party doesn't submit a legal affront to the evidence then they are acknowledging they don't have a concern.

Law is very structured

What this does tell you is after this and the new York congressman fraud democrats need to do a better job fact checking because that is apparently necessary these days

Actually looking into these things would have blown them out of the water but neither were discovered until it was too late to matter

6-3 party line opinion kills Biden's student debt relief.

Apologies for the false alarm if you saw my now deleted post. Student debt was technically two cases and they dropped the first one and I saw "dismissed on standing" and jumped the gun. It was this second one that was the one where they tackled it head on.

Annoying, but might galvanize 2024 votes.

Bleh

I'd sooner expect Biden to get blamed for this because I have no faith in the electorate.

masterplum posted...

Annoying, but might galvanize 2024 votes.

Bleh

For that to work hed have to campaign on packing the Court.

And he doesnt have enough support in the Senate to do that anyway

Maniac64 posted...

If someone was waiting on a jury decision when it came out all the evidence was falsified I'm pretty sure they would throw out the case immediately rather than wait for the jury. And they certainly wouldn't let a guilty verdict by that jury stand.

I am thoroughly impressed by your faith in the US legal system lmao

was pretty obvious how these were going to go when they waited until Friday to dump this shit

burn it all down

Americas best hope for progress is just burning down the entire GOP because they have virtually no humanity or empathy and are fucking insane corrupt racist piles of excrement in human form

Except that is like 48% of the country so it's impossible

less than half, seems doable to me

I mean if they didnt cheat to hell and back theyd have far fewer people in the government than they do now. Its just a disgrace that Lauren Im less intelligent than a fucking head of lettuce Boebert is a representative of anything. Shed be an embarrassment as a Walmart manager let alone a member of the government lol

I'm willing to bet that very few congressmen wouldn't be fired if they had to do a single shift at any job where they had to actually be accountable for anything

Read Gorsuch's opinion in the LGBTQ case and jesus what a mistake.

He bases a lot of his arguing around the fact that the web designer isn't discriminating against LGBTQ people because she'll still let them buy websites from her. ...Just, you know, not for their weddings. They can get one for their straight friends as a gift I guess so clearly no discrimination going on here. The dissent explicitly calls that shit out too and compares it to the civil rights cases they had to decided by just changing the names/categories out and saying that under this logic this court would have found it was okay for hotels to disallow black people from staying in a room provided they still let them rent a room out for their white friends because that proves they weren't being discriminating against based on race.

I don't think logical fallacies matter much to indoctrinated extremists

FFDragon posted...

Except that is like 48% of the country so it's impossible

48% of people who vote, like 23% of the country.

PeaceFrog posted...

I'm willing to bet that very few congressmen wouldn't be fired if they had to do a single shift at any job where they had to actually be accountable for anything

They'd be pretty safe as police tho

Kenri posted...

They'd be pretty safe as police tho

we're talking about jobs with accountability tho

https://twitter.com/damienredicamn1/status/1674799665483481088?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

I am trying to tone down just dunking on another country I dont live in but the way the Supreme Court functions should not exist in a democracy. If this happened anywhere else people would be lining up to call the place a dictatorship and well, they wouldnt be far off.

I mean pretty much every other country with a Supreme Court has it operate very differently. Specifically not lifetime terms so that its makeup isn't a lottery based on when people die.

It wouldn't have changed the result, but alito should have recused to at least give the appearance of not basing his decisions based on who bought him out. I think that democrats need to hammer home just how corrupt these justices are to push for reform.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/damienredicamn1/status/1674799665483481088?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

That's not the ruling. Today's ruling only applies to speech. I don't believe it applies to the case where a gay couple come in and want to buy a cake without writing on it.

LightningStrikes posted...

I am trying to tone down just dunking on another country I dont live in but the way the Supreme Court functions should not exist in a democracy. If this happened anywhere else people would be lining up to call the place a dictatorship and well, they wouldnt be far off.

Are you talking about judicial review? If so, I far prefer judicial review to parliamentary supremacy. I mean I do appreciate that other countries with parliamentary supremacy manage to avoid having crazy parliaments making sudden and drastic changes to law, but can you imagine what would have happened in the US from 2017 to 2019 when Republicans controlled Congress if we had parliamentary supremacy?

https://twitter.com/VanessaMiller_/status/1674793373918699525

Something something activist judges

Shouldnt forgive a goddamn cent of PPP loans either, but of course that slightly annoys their overlords that bought them

We had a long discussion about the 303 Case (the LGBTQ+ web designer case) on Discord and I was brought around to thinking that if you actually decide to reach the merits of the case (whether you should is another matter entirely - especially given the apparent fraud involved in the complaint) it's more nuanced than I thought - and how I feel it is portrayed and argued in the majority's opinion.

tl;dr of the discussion: To the extent you consider the web design artistic and contract work I think I can grudgingly except an artist having the right to refuse/not be compelled to take on work. Which is distinct from, say, entering a McDonalds and ordering a Big Mac and being refused.

I still am not entirely sure I'm onboard with this specific ruling though because an argument raised by Colorado and dismissed by the majority is the hypothetical (because she never sold a single website design period) of a gay couple requesting the exact same website designed for a straight couple previously, just with the names and dates changed because in my mind that would have it leave the realm of "art" and be closer to the McDonalds example.

Another thing we were tossing about in the Discord discussion that I don't think was answered but feel should be brought up is whether the protections involved changed when we're discussing an individual artist vs an LLC as was the case here. I think the majority declared them the same but I don't know if I agree that should be the case.

In any event, all the above aside, I think the majority was wrong to basically lean as hard as it did on religious expression as it did. Makes the ruling worse and shows what they're really thinking IMO. Kind of says something when a Discord chat made the case for me way better than this majority did with its gross arguments that I mentioned earlier.

Now the Student Debt Loan decision is just a farce on every level - standing to merits.

On Reddit already seeing lots of images of people with signs up on places saying No (insert people here allowed). Some anti-LBGTQ and some saying they wont serve anyone whose church doesnt support pride and no MAGAs. Cant wait for the ensuing chaos :|

https://twitter.com/machineiv/status/1674852705112555523?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

Thorn posted...

Now the Student Loan Debt decision is just a farce on every level - standing to merits.

I dunno about standing but it seems to me that Biden pretty clearly didn't have the authority to do it (it certainly wasn't the intent of the law).

LordoftheMorons posted...

I dunno about standing but it seems to me that Biden pretty clearly didn't have the authority to do it (it certainly wasn't the intent of the law).

But that's not really the court's job. As the dissent points out, whether Congress should have delegated that much authority to the Secretary of Education isn't their place to answer. The law they passed pretty clearly does.

Or, perhaps this is a better way to put it - again as the dissent puts forward - the HEROES Act pretty clearly gives the Secretary the broad power to essentially rewrite the terms and conditions of the loans during a national emergency. Congress obviously knew that there would be future national emergencies so obviously this authority would be there then as well. And this wasn't some accidental loophole the administration found in the bill, it's clearly spelled out.

Whether or not Congress should have given this much power or whether or not the Secretary should exercise it are political questions outside the authority of the court. The remedies to either of those questions lies with the electoral process, not the judicial branch.

LordoftheMorons posted...

I dunno about standing but it seems to me that Biden pretty clearly didn't have the authority to do it (it certainly wasn't the intent of the law).

Lmao classic LotM-posting.

He 100% has the authority to do it under the Higher Education Act, if his administration was willing to put in the effort they could have solved this.

Not sure how in the world you can confidently state that and put the blame on Biden when in this very case this court chose to ignore that an Act of Congress gave authority to the Executive Branch to do this because they profess "concern" that the "administrative state" has gained too much power.

They're straight up legislating from the bench and deciding policy. Why do you think they'd respect the Higher Education Act when they decided that HEROES could be ignored because they don't like giving DOE that much power? Because somehow I doubt maintaining they have that same power, just under a different Act, is going to persuade them.

Like, clearly, Biden does have the authority but this court simply doesn't give a fuck.

https://i.imgur.com/ts6emMH.png

Diarrhea forever would actually be preferable to the reality of how bad they are tbh

I dunno. How forever we talking? Like can I never get off the toilet?

If they make a move to gut FDA oversight of food production, the rampant e-coli and listeria infections could always turn into diarrhea forever.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/machineiv/status/1674852705112555523?s=46&t=v9nzYLLBIiNYrqldFs9NWQ

For achieving the goals of the progressive movement, how is this tweet helpful?

For achieving the goals of the progressive movement, how is you reposting and signal boosting this tweet helpful?

What this does tell you is after this and the new York congressman fraud democrats need to do a better job fact checking because that is apparently necessary these days

Actually looking into these things would have blown them out of the water but neither were discovered until it was too late to matter

What we need is for Republicans to stop lying; for Republican voters to value honesty above "owning the libs". Democrats recognizing that they cannot safely assume Republicans are acting in good faith can only slow the bleeding.

Also IIRC, Santos's Dem opponent did bring up many of the lies Santos told about his background. Like, probably not all of them because they were just so fucking many, but most of the initial ones were brought up in the campaign but the media didn't care so it lost staying power.

also don't think "democrats" were the defendant in this court case but you can correct me if i am wrong

MalcolmMasher posted...

What we need is for Republicans to stop lying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qoqmmIY1dQ

So yeah, both sides are bad.

Inviso posted...

For achieving the goals of the progressive movement, how is this tweet helpful?

For achieving the goals of the progressive movement, how is you reposting and signal boosting this tweet helpful?

How do any tweets or posts in this topic help anything? How do we hurt?

Trump isn't winning the next election. We haven't had a Republican win an election right after a Republican lost won since the fall of the USSR.

Xeybozn posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qoqmmIY1dQ

So yeah, both sides are bad.

"What does that mean?"