Four Promising Takeaways from the Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Argument

[EasyAce]

By David French
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454377/four-promising-takeaways-masterpiece-cakeshop-oral-argument

Before I write anything else, understand this — basing case predictions on oral argument is an
uncertain business. I’ve seen lawyers and clients leave a courtroom with confidence only to be crushed
when they read the opinion. Still, arguments can offer clues as to a justice’s thinking, and they’re worth
analyzing. I’ve read the Masterpiece Cakeshop argument transcript, and there are at least four encouraging
signs.

First, Kristen Waggoner, the ADF attorney arguing for Jack Phillips strongly and clearly made the most
vital point — the issue was the artistic message, not the identity of the customer . . .

. . . Second, the justices seemed less concerned with the facts of this case than with line-drawing (i.e. how
far does the compelled speech principle extend? Could it cover a truly wide array goods and services?) It’s
always interesting to me when judges remove the focus from the case in front of them to the implications
of, say, ruling for my client. That’s often a sign that a lawyer is on the verge of building a coalition with
otherwise-hostile judges . . .

. . . Third, several justices were concerned with the apparent anti-religious animus expressed by members
of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission . . .

. . . Finally, legal experts are focusing on the wrong Kennedy quote. His statement that “Counselor, tolerance
is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state
in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs” is garnering headlines,
but it’s not as important as what came later. Justice Kennedy put extremist identity politics on blast . . . A
person’s actions are not the same thing as a person’s identity. Phillips never, ever, discriminated on the basis
of identity. He merely refused to use his talents to support actions and messages he believes to be immoral.
Justice Kennedy gets the key distinction in this case. Now let’s hope this thought makes it into the opinion of
the Court.

. . .

[Frank Cannon]

Nonsense. We had all of this type of sophistry before Obamacare was supposed to be struck down before it wasn't. Who the hell knows how Kennedy or Roberts will vote. All the justices are corrupt and not beyond bribery and collusion.