• jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is standard operating procedure for them. From the article:

    Earlier this year, the Court decided 303 Creative v. Elenis, holding that the First Amendment prohibited Colorado, which has a broad anti-discrimination statute that protects LGBTQ people, from requiring a website designer to make a wedding website for a gay couple. The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, said in court filings that she had been contacted by “Stewart,” one half of a gay couple named Stewart and Mike, about making invites, placemats, and a website for their upcoming same-sex nuptials. Stewart sent Smith his contact information through her website, and this is what ostensibly caused Smith to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court — the mere inquiry from a gay man. Except even that never happened.

    Melissa Gira Grant, a writer at the New Republic, decided to call Stewart, as his contact information was submitted to the court in Smith’s filings. Stewart was very surprised by the call, telling Grant he is straight, has been married to a woman for 15 years, and certainly didn’t ask anyone to make him a wedding website.

    The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

    • deadsenator@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

      They did the same thing with the praying football coach. Ruling on the lies as facts in the case even after they were refuted. Actions suited for a kangaroo court. How shameful.

      https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch

      "Under the real facts of Kennedy’s case, Kennedy violated the Constitution.

      The Lemon case, which the Court overruled in Kennedy, held that the government’s actions “must have a secular legislative purpose,” that their “principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and that the government may not “foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”

      A public school official conducting a very public prayer during the course of his official duties as a government employee clearly violates this Lemon test."

  • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Correct. That is their plan. They’ve already made at least 1 ruling based on a fabricated case of discrimination.

  • Octavio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think they’re making decisions based on who takes them on the fanciest yacht trip.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    And they’re openly malicious about it. It’s a little different, but the extremists on the court are unashamedly against substantive due process. Thomas and Alito are on record saying that death row inmates deserve to be killed by the state if they misfiled appeal paperwork or want to make a defective counsel defense (an otherwise perfectly legitimate defense), even if it is clear that new evidence would be raised that might prove their innocence.

    You deserve to die, innocent person, because the court just doesn’t feel like figuring out the facts. Doesn’t get much more evil than that, but I’m sure they’ll try to outdo themselves.

  • Syo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the judicial was held up by “honor system” … you’re gonna find a bunch of cheats.

  • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now that even the pretense of justice has been stripped away, what are you going to do?

    Your representatives don’t represent you.

    Your justices do not seek justice.

    Your votes do not decide the winner.

    The police do not protect you.

    What are you going to do?

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Source? Feels like something I should read up on out of civic duty…seeing as it’s 2023 I’m just going to guess that my instincts are wrong and it’s probably even worse than it sounds

        • dreamwave@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thomas and Kavanaugh

          Look at the reporting on both of their confirmation hearings, or listen to the hearings themselves if you wish

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And interpreting the constitution as, what was it, “history and traditions” which can sure be selectively picked.