Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #75 on: June 04, 2018, 05:02:11 pm »
It’s essentially just a win for public civility:  a decision-maker must simply avoid voicing his or her personal prejudices or biases when making a decision.  It doesn’t say they can’t act on those prejudices or biases, so long as they can find a neutral fig leaf to cover up the unsightliness.

Yup.  They have to at least pretend to give a crap about the beliefs of those idiot Christians and their barbaric beliefs.  It's a start.

I heard it said the problem with the Colorado case is they treated the baker's belief with "disdain," which is ironic because the person who said that has treated the baker's belief with nothing but disdain for the past year or so.

@txradioguy move over and gimme some of that...

:2popcorn:
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #76 on: June 04, 2018, 05:03:15 pm »
Sure they can play that game, but they now need to provide solid legal justification rather than just arbitrary and bias dismissal. Those justifications can then be scrutinized to see if they are indeed fair and impartial.

That’s not that difficult. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #77 on: June 04, 2018, 05:04:23 pm »
Yup.  They have to at least pretend to give a crap about the beliefs of those idiot Christians and their barbaric beliefs.  It's a start.

I heard it said the problem with the Colorado case is they treated the baker's belief with "disdain," which is ironic because the person who said that has treated the baker's belief with nothing but disdain for the past year or so.

@txradioguy move over and gimme some of that...

:2popcorn:

@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  People can poo poo this decision all they want to...but a win is a win...no matter how small.  The left encroached on the rights of Christians incrementally and there's nothing wrong with winning back certain rights and freedoms the same way.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #78 on: June 04, 2018, 05:05:25 pm »
@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  People can poo poo this decision all they want to...but a win is a win...no matter how small.  The left encroached on the rights of Christians incrementally and there's nothing wrong with winning back certain rights and freedoms the same way.

What rights and freedoms were won back?

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #79 on: June 04, 2018, 05:07:09 pm »
@Cyber Liberty

I've got enough to share.  People can poo poo this decision all they want to...but a win is a win...no matter how small.  The left encroached on the rights of Christians incrementally and there's nothing wrong with winning back certain rights and freedoms the same way.

Correct.  This is the first decision I've seen in a while that acknowledges Christians are even entitled to HAVE beliefs, so it's the first chink in the armor.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 05:08:33 pm by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #80 on: June 04, 2018, 05:08:17 pm »
Correct.  This is the first decision I've seen in a while that even acknowledges Christians are even entitled to HAVE beliefs, so it's the first chink in the armor.

Seriously?

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #81 on: June 04, 2018, 05:08:23 pm »
What rights and freedoms were won back?

The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #82 on: June 04, 2018, 05:08:23 pm »
OK Folks, I read the entire thread as well as the Reuters link but could not find the names of the Two Justices who voted against the Colorado Baker.

Who were the two? I would guess that one of them would be Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg..., who's the other?

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #83 on: June 04, 2018, 05:08:55 pm »
OK Folks, I read the entire thread as well as the Reuters link but could not find the names of the Two Justices who voted against the Colorado Baker.

Who were the two? I would guess that one of them would be Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg..., who's the other?


Sotomayor.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #84 on: June 04, 2018, 05:09:58 pm »
Seriously?

No, I'm just making it up as I go along. 
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #85 on: June 04, 2018, 05:10:29 pm »
OK, I found this from TOS

Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch join Kennedy’s opinion; Kagan concurs, joined by Breyer; Gorsuch concurs, joined by Alito. Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment.

Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor. So it’s 7-2.

Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #86 on: June 04, 2018, 05:12:00 pm »
The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.

That was never in doubt, as a matter of legal precedent.  The proposition that everyone is entitled to a neutral adjudicator, or at least an adjudicator who maintains the appearance of impartiality, is 1L 101. 

What’s interesting is that only two justices do not appear to have remembered 1L 101.  Thank God one of them is not long for the bench.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #87 on: June 04, 2018, 05:12:34 pm »
No, I'm just making it up as I go along. 

That would explain a lot. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #88 on: June 04, 2018, 05:13:09 pm »
OK, I found this from TOS

Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch join Kennedy’s opinion; Kagan concurs, joined by Breyer; Gorsuch concurs, joined by Alito. Thomas concurs in part and in the judgment.

Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor. So it’s 7-2.

Hopefully, Ginsburg will be gone in a few... but we'll have Sotomayor to deal with for a LOOONG time.


God help us if the "Wise Latina" ever becomes Chief Justice.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #89 on: June 04, 2018, 05:14:21 pm »
READ THE DECISION HERE IF YOU HAVE INSOMNIA:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #90 on: June 04, 2018, 05:15:58 pm »
That’s not that difficult.

Maybe, but they must also be consistent from case to case. What's given to or taken from one must be done for all. It at least gives a legal team a foothold to hold these commissions accountable.
The Republic is lost.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #91 on: June 04, 2018, 05:16:35 pm »
That was never in doubt, as a matter of legal precedent.  The proposition that everyone is entitled to a neutral adjudicator, or at least an adjudicator who maintains the appearance of impartiality, is 1L 101. 

What’s interesting is that only two justices do not appear to have remembered 1L 101.  Thank God one of them is not long for the bench.

Prior to today, I suspect Jack Phillips would greatly disagree.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #92 on: June 04, 2018, 05:17:02 pm »
God help us if the "Wise Latina" ever becomes Chief Justice.

That can only happen if the nation is stoopit enough to elect a Dem before Roberts quits.  Which is probably a good likelihood, because Roberts is likely to retire the instant a Dem is sworn in.  That kind of crap is how he rolls.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #93 on: June 04, 2018, 05:19:28 pm »
Prior to today, I suspect Jack Phillips would greatly disagree.

"That was never in doubt." 

I am a fool on these legal-beagle issues, but I was with Jack on that.  I never know how a court will rule, and "experts" like Andrew Napolitano are very often incorrect on their predictions.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #94 on: June 04, 2018, 05:19:59 pm »
That can only happen if the nation is stoopit enough to elect a Dem before Roberts quits.  Which is probably a good likelihood, because Roberts is likely to retire the instant a Dem is sworn in.  That kind of crap is how he rolls.

That's when he's not rolling over for a Dem president as was the case in the immigration rulings and Obamacare.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #95 on: June 04, 2018, 05:23:12 pm »
Maybe, but they must also be consistent from case to case. What's given to or taken from one must be done for all. It at least gives a legal team a foothold to hold these commissions accountable.

Within broad parameters, yes, but the devil is always in the details.  What makes one case the same as, or different from, another case is the similarity of the relevant facts; what is, or is not, relevant is a judgment call, and whether a particular fact exists or not is generally determined by the first person to hear the case, and appellate courts will generally only reverse a finding of fact for clear error, which is a fairly high hurdle. 

The basic problem in this case is not so much that the commissioners were biased, but that they pulled their trousers down and waggled their naughty bits at the baker when they made their decision.  If they’d maintained appearances, this might have been a much different case. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 05:25:08 pm by Oceander »

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #96 on: June 04, 2018, 05:29:10 pm »
That's when he's not rolling over for a Dem president as was the case in the immigration rulings and Obamacare.

And, in a sense, in this case too.  Someone will come along and tell me I'm FOS, but the court went out of their way to make sure this doesn't set a precedence that can be used as a guide for future rulings.  We've seen that mealy-mouth crap quite a lot from the Roberts Court.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #97 on: June 04, 2018, 05:30:46 pm »
Within broad parameters, yes, but the devil is always in the details.  What makes one case the same as, or different from, another case is the similarity of the relevant facts; what is, or is not, relevant is a judgment call, and whether a particular fact exists or not is generally determined by the first person to hear the case, and appellate courts will generally only reverse a finding of fact for clear error, which is a fairly high hurdle. 

The basic problem in this case is not so much that the commissioners were biased, but that they pulled their trousers down and waggled their naughty bits at the baker when they made their decision.  If they’d maintained appearances, this might have been a much different case.

It will add doubt into the equation when commissioners or other elected reps make policy going forward.   If I was the baker I would turn around and file suit for the legal costs of all this.  Bankrupt the city
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #98 on: June 04, 2018, 05:36:33 pm »
I just saw an interesting little nugget in the discussion of this case over on Volokh Conspiracy; to wit: does the emphasis on the prejudiced remarks by the Colorado commissioners foreshadow a possible result in the case regarding Trump’s travel ban?  That is, if the subjective, but voiced, prejudices of the commissioners in this case were enough to render their decision unconstitutional discrimination, does that imply that the Supreme Court will also find that Trump’s prejudiced anti-Muslim statements render his travel ban unconstitutional discrimination?

If that’s true, then this case was an incredibly expensive horse-trade. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #99 on: June 04, 2018, 05:37:24 pm »
It will add doubt into the equation when commissioners or other elected reps make policy going forward.   If I was the baker I would turn around and file suit for the legal costs of all this.  Bankrupt the city

It’ll just make future decision-makers more careful about what they say.