June 26, 2017

SCOTUSblog live-blogs the Supreme Court.

Here. 
Because today is the last day the court will issue opinions, we can actually predict which six opinions will come today.
ADDED: "The court has denied review in Peruta, over a dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch." From the sidebar descriptions of cases:
Peruta v. California Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
"Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of review in Peruta, joined by Gorsuch."

AND: They took the cake!
Masterpiece Cakeshop has been granted....

The big addition today is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is a challenge by a Colorado man who owns a bakery and regards himself as a "cake artist." He objects to having to create cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies, on the ground that it would violate his religious beliefs.
AND: The Court summarily reversed Pavan v. Smith, "a challenge to an Arkansas law that requires a married mother's male spouse to be on the birth certificate, even if he is not the biological father" but does not require the same fro married same-sex couples." The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the law.

AND: The first case announced is decided by Thomas, which elicits a "Whoa!" from SCOTUSblog because it reveals that all the decisions today will be written by either Thomas, Kennedy, or Roberts. (The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority.)

AND: Trinity Lutheran — the case I'm most interested in — is written by the Chief Justice. The state loses its effort to exclude the religious school from a program of distributing shredded tires for use in playground resurfacing. This is the legal problem of separation of religion and government versus the principle of not discriminating based on religion:
Roberts writes that, although the state's policy "is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office," "the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand."
Here's the opinion. I'll have more to say about this later.

I'd like to think how Trinity Lutheran might affect Masterpiece Cake. Trinity Lutheran is about treating the religious entity the same as other applicants for a government benefit. Masterpiece Cake is about wanting a special exception because of religion. Do you want a nondiscrimination principle or a pro-discrimination principle or do you think religion should win both ways: Government can't give us special treatment to hurt us, but it also must give us special treatment to help us?

AND: Trinity Lutheran has 6 votes in the majority on the Roberts opinion. (Kagan is in there.) But there is a footnote, footnote 3, that's not the majority (because Thomas and Gorsuch don't join). It says: "This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination." [ADDED: There are 6 votes on the Roberts opinion, with T & G opting out of that footnote. And Breyer also concurs. So there are 7 votes for the outcome. Only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent.]

AND: In Trinity Lutheran, Gorsuch (joined by Thomas) addresses footnote 3. Thomas writes a separate concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) to call Locke v. Davis into question. ("This Court’s endorsement in Locke of even a 'mil[d] kind,' id., at 720, of discrimination against religion remains troubling.") Locke allowed the state to withdraw a scholarship from an otherwise qualified college student because he declared a major in devotional theology. [ADDED: It was important in Locke that the discrimination wasn't based on animus against religion but, supposedly, a benevolent tradition of separating religion and government. Thus, you should see the importance of footnote 3: There was animus in this case, and these were not the good-hearted government discriminators who prevailed in Locke.]

AND: "The [immigration ban] cases weren't included in this morning's orders.... The justices might rule on it separately later today or they might include it in an orders list tomorrow morning."

AND: "We have action on the travel ban. 'We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.'" THE STAY IS GRANTED! in part.
On the stay in part: "We grant the Government's applications to stay the injunctions" blocking the implementation of the ban "to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of Section 2(c)" -- the provision suspending entry from six countries -- "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.... "We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated."...

So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come.

188 comments:

David Begley said...

King Kennedy will not retire. He has four law clerks for next term.

Kevin said...

The justices did NOT act on the travel ban this morning.

Of course not. It will be the very last item they deal with on the way out the door.

These are smart people. Why should they upset one half of the country or the other and then come to work the next day?

Browndog said...

I subscribe to this line of thought:

In a Constitutional Republic, the citizens should not live in fear of the opinions of 9 robed lawyers on one day in June.

Sebastian said...

"In a Constitutional Republic, the citizens should not live in fear of the opinions of 9 robed lawyers on one day in June." Correct. It truly is one of the two worst features of American government.

WisRich said...

They rule in favor of Trinity Church. Kagen joined the conservatives

DKWalser said...

I'm glad they decided to take the cake. I think its a good freedom of expression case. Should government be allowed to compel speech just because someone has entered into commerce? In this case, I think not. We've said yes in the cause of public safety (requiring publication of safety or health information). We've said yes in cases of employment rights (requiring publication of notices about minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination rules, etc.). But, what is the public interest that compels a baker to speak favorably about a particular wedding?

Chris Breisch said...

Do real people use the word "odious"? Or only legal-types? I have a decent vocabulary, but I don't recall ever using that word in a normal conversation.

damikesc said...

Why is SCOTUS unwilling to defend Heller? States keep undermining it and they refuse to undercut that. If they don't take their precedents seriously, why should anybody?

Lyssa said...

It seems amazing to me that there's not any racially-based precedent for the cake case. Surely, some sort of similar issues had to come up in the civil rights era. But if there's any out there, I've never heard mention of it.

WisRich said...

Apparently Sotomayor is reading her dissent in court on Trinity. She's mad: Damn religious freedom.

gspencer said...

Com'n, Kennedy, tell us you've decided to take up your knitting. Or crocheting.

James Pawlak said...

SCOTUS has, again, failed to support the "Founding Fathers" as to the "right to keep and bear arms". (Anyone interested in the documentation behind my position may contact me at }

David Begley said...

RBG is 84. Why doesn't she retire?

rhhardin said...

I hate the cake one. It's the wrong argument.

The right ones are

1. He in the wedding cake business, and gay weddings aren't weddings. If the government redefines the word, it doesn't put him in a new business. He does the man-woman thing.

2. Religious argument is the wrong one. It's a language argument. This is a wedding and that is not.

3. The whole thing is tangled in a mistake in the civil rights law. The law ought to have been freedom of association except in monopoly or state/local violence enforced markets. Then the baker is simply under freedom of association, there being no monopoly or sanction for serving gays.

Nothing to do with religion.

WisRich said...

David Begley said...
RBG is 84. Why doesn't she retire?

6/26/17, 9:22 AM
-------

She's leaving like Scalia.

Lyssa said...

Masterpiece Cake is about wanting a special exception because of religion.

Can't you find for Masterpiece without reference to religion? It's a compelling case from a pure freedom of speech perspective.

Sebastian said...

@rh: "I hate the cake one. It's the wrong argument." I wish. But our overlords have redefined "marriage" and therefore "wedding," and arguing on the basis of what the "law ought to have been" wouldn't get very far, even with a court that ignores original meaning or precedent at will.

Yancey Ward said...

David,

Even if Ginsburg died tomorrow, she will be on the court until January 20th 2021 at a minimum.

Andy Krause said...

I look forward to the analysis of Trinity and Masterpiece. My sense is that discrimination by the government should not allowed and accommodation for individual expressions should be allowed.

Oh Yea said...

Blogger WisRich said...
David Begley said...
RBG is 84. Why doesn't she retire?

6/26/17, 9:22 AM
-------

She's leaving like Scalia.

6/26/17, 9:27 AM

Why should she retire? I don't agree with her point of view but I respect her opinions more than anything put out by Sotomayor.

Dave from Minnesota said...

A note on Trinity Lutheran. Their playground is open to the public when daycare is not in session. And their daycare is basically a secular operation that happens to be owned/run by a church. In my view, by excluding them from the tire shredded program, it is anti-religious discrimination. It would be different if the playground was closed off to the public and only used by church members. Or if they only allowed orthodox Lutherans to use the playground.

Speaking of exclusions....the gay pride parade in Minneapolis chose to not allow a police unit in their parade. They said that the organizers of a public parade on a public street can exclude units/organizations that they don't want to see in their parade. They don't like the police. They did change their mind at the last minute over a huge outcry.

Dave from Minnesota said...

It seems amazing to me that there's not any racially-based precedent for the cake case. Surely, some sort of similar issues had to come up in the civil rights era. But if there's any out there, I've never heard mention of it.

Apparently back in the day, even the KKK weren't big enough d-bags to go to a black contractor and try to force him to build a cross for their burning ceremony.

Ann Althouse said...

"It seems amazing to me that there's not any racially-based precedent for the cake case. Surely, some sort of similar issues had to come up in the civil rights era. But if there's any out there, I've never heard mention of it."

Due process arguments were made in the attacks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They lost. That's very well known precedent. Restaurant owners said they had a right to decide who to serve in their privately owned restaurants. That failed. If you haven't heard it mentioned, it must simply be that it's so well known, it doesn't get pointed out. It's extremely solid precedent. Libertarians still like to talk about it and say it was wrong. Maybe hang around with libertarians if you want to hear it treated as a live issue.

Fen said...

"without refernces to religion"

Conscientious objector refuses to be drafted to kill people.

Feminist photographer refuses to shoot a bondage scene that she feels promotes violence against women.

Jewish seamstress who survived Auswitch refuses to make Gestapo costumes for the KKK march.

Ann Althouse said...

"He in the wedding cake business, and gay weddings aren't weddings. If the government redefines the word, it doesn't put him in a new business. He does the man-woman thing."

The legal question isn't about "redefining words." You have freedom of speech and can use words any way you want. The govt is regulating behavior, not how you use words.

rhhardin said...

Maybe hang around with libertarians if you want to hear it treated as a live issue.

If you're interested in a consistent interpretation of the Constitution, you'd follow where the Constitution came from and so what is necessary to keep it consistent.

Rick Turley said...

From the NYT just now:

"“We grant the government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of” Mr. Trump’s executive order “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

And will hear the case in the fall.

Ann Althouse said...

"If you're interested in a consistent interpretation of the Constitution, you'd follow where the Constitution came from and so what is necessary to keep it consistent."

I was responding to someone who asked about precedent.

rhhardin said...

The govt is regulating behavior, not how you use words.

You can't force a hardware store owner to supply a wedding cake. He's not in that business.

If a baker does man-woman weddings, he's not in the gay wedding business. Same thing.

It matters very much if you redefine the word. You take what business he said he was in and expand it to a business he's not in.

Dave from Minnesota said...

The thing about wedding caterers...they are a big part of the event. They work a lot ahead of time with the couple. They show up at the event in their vans, spend the day working the event.
This isn't someone walking into a store, pulling an item off a shelf then going up to the cash register to pay.

rhhardin said...

Precedent is only reasonable if it's something that didn't fuck up the consistency of the system. That calls for overturning.

Jimmy said...

CB> "Do real people use the word 'odious'?"

"A slavish concern for the composition of words is the sign of a bankrupt intellect. Be gone, odious wasp! You smell of decayed syllables." - Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth (movie version)

Lyssa said...

Due process arguments were made in the attacks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They lost. That's very well known precedent. Restaurant owners said they had a right to decide who to serve in their privately owned restaurants. That failed. If you haven't heard it mentioned, it must simply be that it's so well known, it doesn't get pointed out. It's extremely solid precedent. Libertarians still like to talk about it and say it was wrong. Maybe hang around with libertarians if you want to hear it treated as a live issue.

Yeah, of course I'm familiar with those cases. I mean more specific precedent, related to religion and/or expression. Association is always a harder case to make.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can't you find for Masterpiece without reference to religion? It's a compelling case from a pure freedom of speech perspective."

That's the way I've been writing about the case, as a matter of freedom of speech, because decorating a cake is expressive. It's not a refusal to "bake a cake" as I keep reading or to put any sort of icing on a cake. It's about putting designs, images, and words on the cake. It brings into play the high-low distinction that's so important in the discussion of art and various forms of writing. I'll be talking about this a lot.

David Baker said...

MSNBC is emphasizing "partly" in Trump's travel ban victory. Also, about SCOTUS "allowing" Trump - for the time being - be president.

Fen said...

As for the wedding cake, it's artistic expression (don't ask me why) which is why these bakeries were happy to serve gay clients all the Valentine's cakes they could eat, but forcing them to use their artistic speech to support a religious ceremony they didn't approve of was a violation of their civil rights.

Ann Althouse said...

"If a baker does man-woman weddings, he's not in the gay wedding business. Same thing."

So it's like accusing a clothes store of sex discrimination because they only sell women's clothes?

rhhardin said...

What the baker believes is so much beside the point that it will screw up the Constitution again. It's what he wants to do, for whatever reason.

He could even do it if he hates gays, which apparently is not the case.

So long as it's not a monopoly market.

rhhardin said...

So it's like accusing a clothes store of sex discrimination because they only sell women's clothes?

I'd buy that.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Can we force a sporting goods store run by pacifists to sell me firearms? The court has ruled that I have a constitutional right to purchase and own firearms.

Ann Althouse said...

NOTE: If you respond to a commenter who is one of the few persons we always delete, then we have to delete you too. Sorry, but please notice the situation and stop responding.

rhhardin said...

Except they're not refusing to sell women's clothes to men. So different.

David Baker said...

CNN is spinning it as a split decision, it's weight favoring the ban.

rhhardin said...

What the baker is refusing to sell is his participation. He likes thinking of man-woman marriage and how he's into it. No interest at all in gays, or in participating.

So that's his business.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them...

This is the tail that will wag the dog. Liberal jurists will be fighting over who can stretch or people like them to cover as many people as possible. The plaintiff before me has two arms and two legs, just like the travelers for whom the injunctions still stands. Thus, they are covered by the injunction

Dave from Minnesota said...

I apologize AA. I was clarifying my note on offering a contract to perform vs just trying to get someone to do a task. I didn't know the issue you refer to.

eric said...

So which travel ban is back in effect?

Did they wrap them all up together, or is it just one particular executive order that they are now allowing?

David Baker said...

Hold on, Jeffery Toobin is about to speak.

MayBee said...

The maddening thing about the playground was you know they were still forced to follow any state and federal safety laws when they built it
For example, it would have had to be compliant with the American with Disabilities Act. ISTM if you can't get sate money, you shouldn't have to follow state laws.

Anyway, I'm glad it was decided the way it was.

rhhardin said...

If it'e the bakery I'm thinking of, he does business with gays. Just not weddings.

Nonapod said...

relationship with a person or entity

In this context, what's an entity? Is a company an entity? Is a University?

Dave from Minnesota said...

"Except they're not refusing to sell women's clothes to men. So different."

I see the issue as slightly different. Its more of a tailor hand making clothing, or at least doing major alterations. And she decides not to make obvious women's articles for men. Do the measuring. Fit him in it.

I know a married practicing Christian gal who does massages. She only takes women clients. Probably fells uncomfortable rubbing down men. Should she be sued and forced to rub men?

JAORE said...

"So this means that the government can enforce the travel ban with regard to people who don't have a relationship to the United States, but not with regard to the named challengers or people like them -- for example, who have relatives who want to come."

So (at least for now) the Constitution extends rights to non-citizens with relatives in America but NOT to non-citizens without?

rhhardin said...

Look up Richard Epstein on civil rights laws and how he has been banned from polite legal society for life for explaining how it's wrong.

Ken B said...

Triple and quintuple negatives.

So, Trump WINS except for the named complainants and those in the same boat (as it were). Is that right? That we will hear about later. The inference is that the "Obama can do it but Trump cannot" ruling is toast. Is that right?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

JAORE said...

So (at least for now) the Constitution extends rights to non-citizens with relatives in America but NOT to non-citizens without?

I think the argument is that it is the U.S. citizen's right to not have their relative discriminated against. I'm not saying I agree with the argument.

Chuck said...

Who is left, to defend any legal merits of the absurd pronouncement, "Donald J. Trump calls for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the a United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..."?

I do not want to see the Trump Administration lose these cases across the board. Not since competent lawyers have stepped in to rewrite the orders, denuding them of much of their Trumpism. A lot of bad law could be made, if the only basis for decisions were Trump's rhetorical foibles.

But personally, Trump has done a lot to make it more difficult to defend them.

Rabel said...

"In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail com-ments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on its face—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose."

Seems important.

Mike said...

We told you pussyhatted ignoramuses the stay on the "travel ban" wouldn't be upheld by SC. We told you but you persisted. In the meantime California has told State employees that they are banned from traveling to other US states that don't meet Sacramento approval for wokeness or something.

So let me ask. Does so much cognitive dissonance hurt your pointy head?

Virtually Unknown said...

Does so much cognitive dissonance hurt your pointy head?

Maybe it's like being high all the time!

Dave from Minnesota said...

Mike, that is kind of an under reported story.

The list of states that California gov't employees are banned from going to is up to about 10. And some really nice states. South Dakota, Texas, etc.
Maybe its like East Germans not allowed to visit West Germany.

Martin said...

How does the official at the airport, processing a planeload of people, determine whether each and every person X has a bonafide relationship that would permit entry?

If they are on a US passport or can show a green card, fine... but beyond that, how is this actually administered?

eric said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
If it'e the bakery I'm thinking of, he does business with gays. Just not weddings


Exactly. This is the equivalent of a black man coming into a bakery and demanding a cake be made for his Satanic ritual. Upon refusal, he takes it to court because he is being refused as a black man.


Um, no. It's the ceremony that is being refused.

But we won't get an honest discussion in this country about these things.

Virtually Unknown said...

I guess until the Democrats get another two SCOTUS choices. "reasons!" is not going to fly as an argument.

gspencer said...

I can look at the weather vane to see which way the wind is blowing as well as anyone else. The USSC allows the meat of DJT's travel ban to go into effect. That's a win in anyone's book (though the left won't admit it).

Dave from Minnesota said...

Mike, and to expand on your thought.....California is banning state travel to states that have just a few rules allowing some conscientious objection to gay rights laws. Such as locker room use, or the issue talked about above.
Yes California sued the federal gov't to support Muslims in some pretty nasty countries when it comes to gay rights. Or just being a gay person.

h said...

Presumably, a kosher caterer has a legal right to say, "No I cannot provide bacon cheeseburgers for your wedding."

And possibly that objection might be based on the fact that it would contaminate my kitchen set-up, rather than on a religious objection.

But suppose the bride says, "No I want you to cook the bacon cheeseburgers in the kitchen at banquet hall I've hired." Can the kosher caterer still say "No, I have a religious objection to preparing bacon cheeseburgers."?

eric said...

Blogger Martin said...
How does the official at the airport, processing a planeload of people, determine whether each and every person X has a bonafide relationship that would permit entry?

If they are on a US passport or can show a green card, fine... but beyond that, how is this actually administered?


Let me make a prediction.

The government will define this very narrowly. They will exclude lots of people. The same activists who took this to court before will repeat the process before the SCOTUS even hears the case. And they will interpret it broadly.

Virtually Unknown said...

And some really nice states. South Dakota, Texas, etc.

Texas is stealing too many businesses from California.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Other than on property rights/economic rights (mostly around takings/just compensation) are there any other fundamental rights the Court allows lesser courts to fuck over in the way they do with 2nd amendment right? Pertua-like situations, where the Court allows a state to violate a right with a state law clearly designed to violate that right, are just infuriating.
"Sure, you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm, but California is a shall-issue state so the state has a near-absolute power to deny you the license you need to actually enjoy that fundamental Constitutional right." Can you imagine the Court standing for that on any other issue? We've seen--recently!--courts refuse to put up with that when states passed much-less-restrictive laws that allegedly burdened women's ability to get abortions.
The right to an abortion is a REAL right, though, not like that icky ol' 2nd Amendment.
If Trump'll give me another Gorsuch I'll give him a vote.

Dave from Minnesota said...

H, I've had the argument over and over and over with lefties. Basically it gets down to:

-A contractor or similar business has a right to refuse certain services or products.
-Unless she is a Biblical Christian. Then she has to agree to anything anyone wants.

cubanbob said...

Please correct me if I am wrong but when it comes to the wedding cake issue it would appear to me (to make an analogy) to be a distinction between a ready wear suit off the rack and a bespoke suit. Buying a generic cake is one thing, commissioning a work is another.

As for the ban, it looks to me like the court got it right: allow the government to continuing the ban while exempting the plaintiffs until the court hears the matter on the merits.

On the CA gun law issue, the court makes no sense. Either you have a right to self-defense in principle or you don't but to say you but only where the state allows you to is ridiculous to say the least.

traditionalguy said...

It is a hoot that US Tax money given to a religious use is forbidden but 100 billions given to UN Gaia priests hawking mythology of global warming is never questioned,

Mike said...

Who is left, to defend any legal merits of the absurd pronouncement, "Donald J. Trump calls for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the a United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..."?

Who cares? The Supreme Court has now correctly and unanimously upheld the President's rightful duty to oversee immigration policy and national security. And they reaffirmed the exclusion of "campaign speech" from the legal process, making your point, if there was one, moot.

In other words the SC just explained that "total and complete ban on Muslims" = "If you like your doctor..."

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Who is left, to defend any legal merits of the absurd pronouncement, "Donald J. Trump calls for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the a United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on..."?


The answer to your question was provided rather quickly.

Blogger Rabel said...
"In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail com-ments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on its face—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose."


So, that would be the SCOTUS Chuck. They are left.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Because this comparison is always (and wrongly) brought up with this issue is discussed….no, its not the same as banning inter-racial marriage. Just the opposite. It was a Catholic couple that got California’s ban overturned. The state of California said that a Catholic couple could not get married because of ethnic differences. They sued, saying the Catholic church does not recognize race when it comes to marriage.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Traditional Guy, I agree with your point, but to clarify....the playground was open to the public and operated in a totally secular way. It'd be like saying gov't employees can't stay at a hotel if the local Super 8 franchise owner is a Christian.

Kevin said...

"We have action on the travel ban. 'We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.'" THE STAY IS GRANTED! in part.

I stand corrected.

Birches said...

I'm really glad that the decision in the preschool case was not 5-4. It appears the liberal block has a couple of people that aren't completely nuts.

Yancey Ward said...

Since everyone everywhere has a cousin in the US, the first action of the Trump Administration will be to narrowly define this "connection" to immediate family- parents and siblings. This definition, of course, will be immediately challenged somewhere in the 4th or 9th circuits and a another blanket injunction will be issued immediately (I predict by the end of next week).

Based on the decision today, I think it pretty clear Trump is going win when SCOTUS does decide the case, which includes the plaintiffs today.

MountainMan said...

This may be a little off-topic but since Mike brings it up above I would like to ask Ann or one of the attorneys on the blog this question with respect to the CA "travel ban" on its state employees traveling to certain other states due to certain laws they have passed.

Is this not unconstitutional? I refer to the following in the Constitution, Article IV:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

BTW, I thought the resolution from my home state of TN was very entertaining, especially the part about "disapproval of California's exorbitant taxes, spiraling budget deficits, runaway social welfare programs, and rampant illegal immigration." You can read about it here if you have not seen it online already.

n.n said...

"=" or congruence is a bigoted movement. The rights accorded to couplets is carve out from equal rights based on distorted merits. The reduction of women and men to womb banks and sperm depositors, and the exclusion of mother and fathers in couplet relationships forces distortions of science, reality, and morality. These are short-sighted, narrow-minded, unprincipled solutions advanced by the same people who gave us [class] diversity, immigration replacement, elective wars, redistributive change (e.g. progressive debt, capital confiscation), and abortion rites. Selective solutions advocated by the Pro-Choice Church and Party.

Chuck said...

About some of the comments above on the Trump travel ban orders which ardent Tump backers would be happy with if it was ban but which they say is not a ban but which Teump has specifically called a "Travel Ban" on his Twitter account...

There is a "standing" issue, and there are substantive rights issues. Resident illegal aliens have certain rights, and standing to assert them in federal court. Non-resident aliens have certain rights, for instance when they are brought under the purview of federal law as a result U.S. legal refugee status, or U.S. treaty obligation, or other U.S. diplomatic or military action. And some U.S. citizens may have standing to sue on behalf of members of those groups. In some cases.

There could well be solid arguments on the details of these cases, but the Trumpian notion that all of these cases are far outside of any federal judicial norms, is simplistic, uninformed and ultimately bogus even if, as I hope, the Trump Administration prevails on some of these issues before SCOTUS.

Pookie Number 2 said...

But suppose the bride says, "No I want you to cook the bacon cheeseburgers in the kitchen at banquet hall I've hired." Can the kosher caterer still say "No, I have a religious objection to preparing bacon cheeseburgers."?

It's technically against Jewish law to cook meat and dairy together in any venue - it's not just a function of un-koshering the caterer's kitchen.

grackle said...

Prez Trump needs to require some type of lab test on folks who are going to claim a close family relationship. Does the applicant’s strangely young-looking “father” need to come over? Then we should take blood samples from both of them and make a ruling after the tests are returned from the lab. This should be obligatory and made part of the routine.

And if it is found out that they lied we should arrest them. There were federal applications that were filled out and signed by them. It’s a crime to lie on those forms.

This wouldn’t guarantee that an actual close relative might not be a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism but it would at least prevent the wholesale importation of terrorists by procedure-savvy activists.

n.n said...

There was never an immigration ban that targeted Muslims exclusively. This was a simple lie promoted by activists, journolists, liberals, and unprincipled judges.

The rate of immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood. Also, immigration policy should not enable a cover-up of collateral damage (e.g. trail of tears) from elective wars and elective regime changes that forced refugee crises from Somalia to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. The people participating in this cover-up are wrong to enable anti-native, fascist factions and actions.

Breezy said...

The cake typically plays a big part in the reception. Why would someone force another to create a wedding cake for them when they are not a willing partner in that endeavor? Surely there are other bakers who would happily provide the cake. If a baker were forced to provide a cake against their will, wouldn't there be an urge to subtlety spoil the outcome? Would you trust that cake if that were your wedding? I have never understood this...except of course people just wanting to make a point and make trouble for others.

PackerBronco said...

For me, the issue with the Wedding Cake baker comes down to the distinction between discriminating against a person (a customer) and choosing whether or not to offer a particular service or product that a customer wants.

For example, a bookstore cannot discriminate against atheists, but there’s nothing illegal about running a Christian bookstore that sells products only of interests to Christians. Nor should the state compel the bookstore owner to sell a book like “God is a myth and Christians are idiots” just because a customer wants it.

Consider the case of a Jewish mother who a great talent for planning weddings and has done so for many years for her family and friends. So she decides in her middle-aged years to open a wedding planning business to bring in a little extra cash. However, she only has done Jewish weddings and only really wants to do Jewish weddings. It’s what she’s good at and what she has a passion for it. So she specializes. Do we really want the state to have the power to come in and tell her “No! You CAN’T specialize. If you dare to specialize, we’ll shut you down and if you persist we will RUIN you!” Ridiculous.

Now return to the cake baker. If he were to say to a customer, “Sorry we don’t serve your kind”, he would be discriminating against a person. However, in this case the baker was perfectly willing to sell products to gay customers for any event or reason except in one case: a gay wedding. So he wasn’t discriminating against them as persons, he was choosing not to be part of a specific event. Like the Jewish mother, like the owner of the Christian bookstore, he is choosing to limit his business model based on his personal beliefs and preferences.

The alternative is give the State the power to force essentially indentured servitude on any free citizen. To say to that citizen: “We, the State, will compel you to do this or that and force you to create products or offer services that we have decided you should offer.” Now sometimes the state does this, quite reasonably IMHO, for safety reasons (ie you must sell cars with seat belts), but in this case I don’t see a compelling reason for a baker to be forced to produce a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

Ann Althouse said...

"I apologize AA. I was clarifying my note on offering a contract to perform vs just trying to get someone to do a task. I didn't know the issue you refer to."

No problem. I feel bad deleting a sincere commenter, so I'm essentially apologizing where that's the collateral damage.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and leftist BS arguments dragging in statements from the past and devining "intent" have been shown the door.

Good.

Anyone who gives the time of day to specious "lifelong republican" and leftist "reasons" to challenge Trump simply because "Trump" ought to be pointed and laughed at unceasingly.

Paul said...

Peruta v. California ... so they kicked the can down the road. THIS will come back again... maybe after Trump replaces a judge or two!!!!

Dave from Minnesota said...

Reading the release from the court, some of the justices say what I and others above said. The playground issue is about the gov't refusing to allow a secular playground to participate in this program because it is owned by a church. It is not about a religious use of a public program.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MountainMan said...Is this not unconstitutional? I refer to the following in the Constitution, Article IV:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."


Yeah but the state gets to exercise discretion in where they spend their money, right? I wouldn't want my state to be forced to buy a product from California instead of/in addition to NC. "States with laws we don't like" is not a protected class! If California made it a rule that state funds couldn't be spent in Mississippi because MS has a lot of black people, that'd probably be a problem. But if CA doesn't want to spend money in states that are not environmentally friendly enough, etc, I doubt the other state would have any kind of case.
I guess you could argue that CA's discriminating against other states on the basis of religion...but even there that'd be tough. You almost have to find that the other states have a pre-existing right to get some spending from CA in order for CA's decision to not spend money there (for whatever reason) is an actionable harm. That'd be a near-impossible legal standard, I'd think.

But, you know, I'm not a lawyer.

Larvell said...

Who cares? The Supreme Court has now correctly and unanimously upheld the President's rightful duty to oversee immigration policy and national security. And they reaffirmed the exclusion of "campaign speech" from the legal process, making your point, if there was one, moot.

Except that it didn't do either of those things -- rather, it granted certiorari so that it could rule on those issues. Describing the parties' assertions is not the same thing as adopting them.

gregq said...

Ann writes:

I'd like to think how Trinity Lutheran might affect Masterpiece Cake. Trinity Lutheran is about treating the religious entity the same as other applicants for a government benefit. Masterpiece Cake is about wanting a special exception because of religion.


No, it isn't. I'm not religious, and I think all same sex "marriages" are fake marriages. Do I have a right to not be forced to participate in one? I think the answer is, and should be, yes, I have that right.

Freedom of Speech: I have the right not to be forced to pretend that an SSM is a real marriage. The fact that Anthony Kennedy decided to force it on the Nation does not cancel my 1st Amendment right to disagree with him.

Hagar said...

Does the travel ban decision still leave a precedent for the idea that any Federal district judge has veto power over any administration foreign policy iniative?

Dave from Minnesota said...

Breezy and PackerBronco....this issue has been discussed to death over the past 5 or so years. In my opinion, and why these cases are only brought up against orthodox Christians, is bigotry. There are a lot of anti-Christian bigots and this is just part of the war.

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

The issue in the cake/florist cases is not the sexual preferences of the client. These business have and do provide other services to gays and do so willingly.

The issue is the message the event proclaims, not the person. It's about speech. And no person, nor business, should be compelled by the government to participate in speech they disagree with. Not a bit of that depends on religion.

An anti-gun sign maker should make a sign for the local gun-range owner's birthday. They should not be compelled through the force of government to make a sign for that same person's machine gun shoot. Just because the machine gun shoot is legal should not compel the sign maker to play a part in the message the shoot proclaims.

An anti-religion builder should build a house for a devout Christian. They should not be compelled through the force of government to build a church sanctuary. Just because the church is legal should not compel the builder to play a part in the message the church proclaims.

A pro-choice caterer should provide food for a pro-lifer's college graduation party. They should not be compelled through the force of government to cater that pro-lifer's protest rally. Just because the pro-life protest is legal should not compel the caterer to play a part in the message the rally proclaims.

Chuck said...

eric, that's a silly and stupid attempt at an argument.

The Fourth Circuit didn't "defend" Trump's campaign comments. Even the Trump Administration/DoJ lawyers weren't "defending" any merits of Trump's comments.

It was nearly the opposite. They were telling the Court of Appeals that Trump's campaign comments shouldn't matter. That they were irrelevant. Unimportant. Not real policy. No legal consequence.

And you call that "defending" those comments? The Trump travel bans were written in ways that made it clear (to me at least) that they were not at all like Trump's campaign comments. The only reason that I'd like to seem them defended now (at least in part) is because they no longer look like what Trump was saying.

I recognize, of course, that Trump and Bannon are effectively speaking, through these orders, to Trump's base. They are saying, "We told you that we'd do something about the illegals, and we're trying." Okay. That's not me. I look to what serious Republican lawyers within the DoJ are actually trying to do. They are not defending Trump's campaign slogans, or his Tweets.

Rabel said...

The ruling has minimal effect on immigration from the 6 named countries because it only applies to the 90 day period covered by Trump's EO. Decisions on what constitutes a bona fide connection will be limited to a relatively few cases within that 90 day period.

The Court stated that it was "balancing the equities" in deciding to exclude certain persons from the ban. In other words, they were trying to be fair and compassionate to persons affected by the ban while recognizing the government's authority in the matter. But they only pledged this fairness until their eventual ruling on the larger issue.

They did this for two reasons:

1. Get the liberal justices on board with the decision.

2. More importantly, they're coaching the Trump administration on what they want to see in its final policy following the short period covered by the EO. They are showing them how to structure that policy in a manner that will be acceptable to the Court.

n.n said...

Should the Pro-Choice Church be allowed to deny lives that its congregants deem unworthy? For political progress? For the convenience of its acolytes? For the profits of the abortion industry? To fulfill the corporate charter of Planned Parenthood?

Larvell said...

Either you make and sell wedding cakes to all,
or you don't do business in our state under our anti-discrimination laws.

How hard is that for small business owners to understand in the 21st century?


The problem is not that the proposition is hard to understand, but that it is incorrect. "The Second Amendment only applies to militias" is also a proposition that is easy to understand, but that's not an argument for its accuracy as a constitutional interpretation.

Fen said...

"Its about speech, not gays"

Exactly. One of the bakeries refused to create "Divorce Celebration" cakes for heterosexuals for the same reason.

gregq said...

Breezy said...
The cake typically plays a big part in the reception. Why would someone force another to create a wedding cake for them when they are not a willing partner in that endeavor?

Because SSM isn't about gays wanting to get married, it's about using the the power of the gov't to force the rest of us to pretend that homosexuality is normal and reasonable.

It's not about binding your life to another person, because if you need gov't approval to do that you're not actually serious.

it'a about political activism.

n.n said...

But congruence ("=") policy is discriminatory. The transgender judge who overruled Democratic voters only considered his self-interest. It selectively excludes individuals and relationships based on Democratic interests. The same discrimination as other policies advanced by the Pro-Choice Church.

Todd said...

Chuck said...

I recognize, of course, that Trump and Bannon are effectively speaking, through these orders, to Trump's base. They are saying, "We told you that we'd do something about the illegals, and we're trying." Okay. That's not me. I look to what serious Republican lawyers within the DoJ are actually trying to do. They are not defending Trump's campaign slogans, or his Tweets.

6/26/17, 11:09 AM


And they should not have to. That is the job of PR folks (if any) not lawyers. The lawyers need to define the law as written (or the EO as the case may be). Though that is no concrete "fact" either as was shown with the ACA (tax/no tax/tax/no tax).

PackerBronco said...

Either you make and sell wedding cakes to all,
or you don't do business in our state under our anti-discrimination laws.


That's not the question. It's not "sell wedding cakes to all", it's "sell wedding cakes for all events."

Todd said...

Should have been "defend" not "define"...

Chuck said...

Again, Todd; I am trying to drill down on eric's dumb argument with me.

Absolutely nobody in court right now is defending Trump's idiotic extrajudicial comments. And that was my point. The lawyers defending the Trump travel ban(s) are saying "Those statements by candidate/Tweeter Trump don't matter; the court should take no notice of them."

That sure as hell isn't "defending" the comments.

I rest my case.

PackerBronco said...

OpenID gregq said...
it'a about political activism.


Pretty much. I see no compelling reason to force a baker to create a cake for a gay wedding. The compelling reason for libs, which they won't state, is that if you allow people to disapprove of gay weddings (even though they're now legal) it will continue the stigma associated with them. Now, they can't restrict freedom of speech (yet, but they're trying) so people can still (for the moment) publically disapprove of gay weddings, but they will make darn sure that if you do you will pay a financial price for it.

Rabel said...

The Court body slammed the "campaign statements" argument used by the lower courts.

Todd said...

OK and agreed.

Fen said...

"How hard is it for small business owners to understand - "

Ironic, because the ignorance is yours not theirs.

I can't link and quote from this phone, but in the Hobby Lobby decision, SCOTUS cites three legal precedents as proof that nothing prevents business owners from denying services based on moral conscience.

Look it up please.

Dave from Minnesota said...

One of the bakeries refused to create "Divorce Celebration" cakes for heterosexuals for the same reason.

Actually that is a point. The pro-forced participation crowd says "well, I bet you don't ban divorced people from you store and your religion is anti-divorce". Which of course isn't generally true, but my response is "well, if you are living your wife of 20 years to 2 teenage children for a gal 15 years your younger, and you want me to create a cake celebrating that, I would refuse".

Dave from Minnesota said...

Leaving your wife, not living.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Absolutely nobody in court right now is defending Trump's idiotic extrajudicial comments.

That's because they're political statements, and only the intentionally dishonest view them in a judicial context.

For better or worse, Trump's approach to communication got him elected president - he correctly understood that many Americans are enormously frustrated by moral preening.

Molly said...

Pookie Number 2 writes:

"It's technically against Jewish law to cook meat and dairy together in any venue - it's not just a function of un-koshering the caterer's kitchen."

That is useful knowledge for this argument (h at 10:21 ).

But can't the bakers say something like:

"It's technically against my Christian religion to contribute in any way to a celebration of a non-Christian marriage ceremony."

And then how can we force the baker to break religious law, without also forcing the kosher caterer to break religious law?

Chuck said...

Pookie Number 2 said...
Absolutely nobody in court right now is defending Trump's idiotic extrajudicial comments.

That's because they're political statements, and only the intentionally dishonest view them in a judicial context.

For better or worse, Trump's approach to communication got him elected president - he correctly understood that many Americans are enormously frustrated by moral preening.


For my part, I am not viewing them in a judicial/policymaking context. I am just viewing them as stupid. They weren't policy; they were never going to be policy. They were too laughably stupid to ever have any hope of being transformed into real orders. And so they weren't.

Instead, real lawyers tried to turn them into something serious. Instead of turning Trump's actual words into policy.

And now, Trump's actual words are not only "not policy," they are (and have been) a drag on trying to legally defend the actual policies in court. If Trump is lucky, the Supreme Court will agree that his extra-judicial and extra-regulatory comments should be disregarded.

All of which just brings me back to my original question: Who is left, to actually defend Trump's comments on their "merits," such as there may be any merits?

Molly said...

Rabel at 10:15 points out this language in the decision: "In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail com-ments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on its face—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose."

But I read that as a description of an argument made by the government, not a conclusion endorsed by the court. The paragraph in which that appears begins, "The government seeks review on several issues....."

As far as I can see, the opinion does not ever address the legitimacy of this argument. However, the concurring opinion by Thomas notes that in order to stay the injunctions, the court needs to believe that "the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on merits," and that in turn requires the court to believe that there is "significant possibility that the judgment below will be reversed" when the Court hears the case in the fall. The fact that the court did stay the injunctions creates the inference that the government case is strong in the eyes of 9 justices.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "For my part, I am not viewing them in a judicial/policymaking context. I am just viewing them as stupid."

LOL

Of course Trump lawyers argued those comments should be ignored. Because that's what the Supremes have ruled and the statutory language is explicit and unambiguous.

Only those on the left and their "lifelong republican" allies would argue otherwise.

Unexpectedly.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "That sure as hell isn't "defending" the comments."

The comments are not relevant.

At all.

No lawyer should waste time addressing them and only leftist judges who long ago walked away from the constitution would dare raise such issues while ignoring, explicitly, the actual language of the law.

But then again, if you were a leftist judge intent on blowing up the constitution and you knew you would be given rhetorical cover by a group of "lifelong republicans", you might feel emboldened to move on that intent.

gregq said...

To follow up on my previous claim:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/how-a-cakemaker-became-an-enemy-of-the-state/#.WVER2azFHEE.twitter

In 2015, a Christian activist named Bill Jack walked into three separate bakeries, one an erotic-themed shop, and asked for each to design a cake in the shape of a Bible, with one side saying, “God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,” and the other, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22.” On another cake, Jack requested that the bakery inscribe a Bible verse on one side: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8” and on the other “God loves sinners.”

In all instances, the proprietors refused to take the project. And why should any American be forced to create something that clashes against their conscience? So Jack, obviously hoping to prove a point, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Christians, after all, are also ostensibly a protected class in the state.

What to do? Well, the commission decided that bakers who discriminate against Christians were offended by content of the message and not the patron’s Christianity. At the same time, the commission claimed the opposite was true for Phillips, whom they asserted wasn’t offended by the gay wedding cake itself but rather by the sexual orientation of the couple.


Either everyone gets freedom, or no one gets it. I'm in favor of everyone getting it, but I'll cheerfully settle for driving out of business every left wing business owner in America. Pick one.

Either I have the absolute right not to have anything to do with a same sex "marriage" ceremony, and not to have my business have anything to do with such a thing, or else no one else has any right to make business decisions based on taste, decency, or their own political views. And by "no one else" we mean every single person beloved by the Left as a "protected class".

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "For my part, I am not viewing them in a judicial/policymaking context. I am just viewing them as stupid."

LOL

Of course Trump lawyers argued those comments should be ignored. Because that's what the Supremes have ruled and the statutory language is explicit and unambiguous.


I know that Professor Althouse wants the personal attacks to end. Her requests seem to have had no impact on your postings. And you continue, in post after post, to attack me personally. Calling me out in every way but by name, and many times by name.

If I were Althouse, I'd ban you. I think she should. I hope she does.

In the meantime, I'll just remind all of the readers that there is no "statutory" language at issue here. We are talking about executive orders, not statutes. And the Supreme Court has not even ruled on the merits in this case. Preliminary injunctions are wholly different matters.

And again as I have written previously today, nobody is actually "defending" Trump's own dumbass language from the campaign and his Twitter account, concerning travel bans. The formal argument is that the federal courts should pay no heed to those statements and that they do not matter in terms of real policy. Some "defense."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dave from Minnesota said...
One of the bakeries refused to create "Divorce Celebration" cakes for heterosexuals for the same reason.

Actually that is a point.


Is it? Divorced people are not a protected class.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Gregq.....and to prove your point above, I just a quick internet search on the story (curious about how it was reported). Every MSM headline said "anti-gay cake" or "anti-gay message". Get it, they just have to label the Christian messages in the negative.
How come a gay wedding cake should be "anti-Orthodox Christian event"?

Dave from Minnesota said...

Also, Huff Post reported the cake story as a "stunt". That the bakery can refuse to make an "anti-gay" cake because the customer went in there to prove a point.

But isn't that what blacks did at Woolworth's? They purposely went in there to prove a point?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...I know that Professor Althouse wants the personal attacks to end. Her requests seem to have had no impact on your postings. And you continue, in post after post, to attack me personally. Calling me out in every way but by name, and many times by name.

If I were Althouse, I'd ban you. I think she should. I hope she does.


How long have you been here, Chuck? Do you know the Professor that poorly? Her standard so far has been whether person X intends to "ruin this forum" or not. Bad manners and incivility are to be frowned upon generally, of course, but they alone don't "ruin this forum."

"More speech," my dear boy; more speech!

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "In the meantime, I'll just remind all of the readers that there is no "statutory" language at issue here."

There is explicit statutory language which vests power solely in the Executive to carry out just these types of restrictions.

Explicit.

Which was ignored, explicitly, by the lower court judicial leftists with full support by their "lifelong republican" allies.

Further, there is ample SC precedent explicitly disallowing the use of prior statements in campaigns or otherwise is the assessment of these types of orders.

Explicit.

You and those politically aligned with you against the Constitution and established law refuse to accept that.

Unexpectedly.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "If I were Althouse, I'd ban you. I think she should. I hope she does."

I get that all the time from left wing fascists.

Real American said...

The Cake Business is a free speech issue, but my guess is that the courts will need to be convinced that baking a wedding cake or taking photos is "speech" (which, of course, it is - much more than serving a meal at a lunch counter or allowing someone to stay in a hotel room) and that compelling people to "speak" in ways they fundamentally object to is barred by the Constitution (like forcing kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school). In each of these types of cases, the bakers or photographers objection is to the ceremony, not the gayness of the customers - they all willingly serve gay customers in other contexts, but just don't do gay "weddings."

The best religious argument is that same-sex "weddings" are religious ceremonies (even if wholly secular) and that any law forcing a business owner to be part of a religious ceremony with which she objects and finds repugnant is unconstitutional.

As Gorsuch writes in his concurring opinion here, the Constitution protects the free EXERCISE of religion - i.e., it goes far beyond allowing people to have religious beliefs or go to church, but to actually utilize their religion in their daily lives. The Constitution does not allow the government to tell business owners that they can go to church on their own time, but when they're working, they need to leave their religion at home. That's not what this country was founded upon and is contrary to our Constitution and our traditions.

Chuck said...

************
COMMENTS ARE MODERATED some but not all of the time. This is for the purpose of excluding/removing a small handful of commenters who, I believe, intend to ruin this forum. They already know who they are. For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks.
************


So what should I do? Should I pretend that the "don't make personal attacks on other commenters" rule does not exist?

In the past, after unremitting attacks on me personally, I have returned the favor in certain select cases. Drago is one such asshole. Full Moon is another. Bad Lieutenant has had a number of his posts deleted following my complaints. I am disappointed, that I have not succeeded (as far as I know) in getting anyone banned. I am working on it. I'd rather see the Althouse rules enforced, rather than being pushed into violating them myself.

Rabel said...

"But I read that as a description of an argument made by the government, not a conclusion endorsed by the court. The paragraph in which that appears begins, "The government seeks review on several issues....."

A good point, but of 6 sentences in that paragraph 4 clearly state that they represent the government view and one other cites a precedent. The sentence I quoted looks to me to stand outside that representation, but I could be wrong. This could have been sloppiness or slyness on their part. It's a particularly critical issue and it seems they would have made an effort to be clear.

And if they did not agree with the government's argument on Trump's campaign statements then by overturning the injunction they have implicitly accepted that religious discrimination in immigration decisions is allowable. I don't think they would do that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...And again as I have written previously today, nobody is actually "defending" Trump's own dumbass language from the campaign and his Twitter account, concerning travel bans.

Why will you say it again (and again, and again, and again)? We heard you. Do you think your position re: Trump is not well known, or not well understood? I'm pretty sure we all get it, Chuck.
I'm not a psychologist but I understand there's probably some intense mental/emotional strain involved when you vote for someone you strongly dislike...and when that person keeps doing things you dislike the memory of your vote might induce guilt or some other negative feeling and make you want to denounce the person, etc. I'm sure that's an unpleasant thing to go through and I'm certainly sorry if anyone you might know experiences that, Chuck. But man: we get it.

Yes, lots of pro-Trump people are silly and tribal and slavish and rude. Plenty of anti-Trump people are, too. Constantly promoting oneself as the last honest man, though...well, that gets annoying. Who takes Evan McMullin seriously anymore?? I think even Bill Kristol dropped him.

Dave from Minnesota said...

I see some of MSM is misrepresenting the Trinity Lutheran case. Wash Post for example.
"Religious school can use taxpayer funds for playground" isn't quite right.
Its a self funded program (a tire tax) designed to send the shredded rubber to playgrounds open to the public. The church's playground is a secular playground open to the public.

Dave from Minnesota said...

The best religious argument is that same-sex "weddings" are religious ceremonies (even if wholly secular) and that any law forcing a business owner to be part of a religious ceremony with which she objects and finds repugnant is unconstitutional.

That is my take. If you are a florist or caterer, you are a major part (participant) of the ceremony. Not just a passive vendor.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Okay, I now read the Wash Post article and they actually get it right. "Secular intent"

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "In the past, after unremitting attacks on me personally, I have returned the favor in certain select cases. Drago is one such asshole"

It is not my fault that you routinely assert to posters here that you are a "lifelong republican".

I've adopted your clear preference as part of your handle.

It is also not my fault that you have asserted that CNN has an accuracy rate of "one in 100,000 stories".

That is quite an assertion by the way and I think it important to highlight, again, what it is you assert so boldly and proudly.

How can that be wrong?

And it is also not my fault that you happen to adopt the specious and ludicrous unconstitutional and moronic judicial positions of left wing activist judges.

Well.

It's not surprising you would like to engage in all of that and not have it noted. You seek that which cannot be created. A forum where you are free to go Full Blowhard and not have anyone call you on it.

Larvell said...

"Dave from Minnesota said...
One of the bakeries refused to create "Divorce Celebration" cakes for heterosexuals for the same reason.

Actually that is a point.


Is it? Divorced people are not a protected class."

Yes, it is a point, because it demonstrates that the bakery is sincere about viewing its celebratory cake-making as a form of speech, and it doesn't want to sell cakes that celebrate something it doesn't approve of. Free speech rights apply regardless of whether the person you are speaking about (or refusing to speak about) is in a protected class. The government cannot make speech about certain classes off-limits, nor can it compel speech simply because it is supportive of a protected class.

Todd said...

Chuck said...

And again as I have written previously today, nobody is actually "defending" Trump's own dumbass language from the campaign and his Twitter account, concerning travel bans. The formal argument is that the federal courts should pay no heed to those statements and that they do not matter in terms of real policy. Some "defense."

6/26/17, 12:51 PM


I think though, that is the defense and I would like to see that upheld in court. That what a politician "says" as rhetoric has no bearing on what the actual legislation or EO says. I would love for SCOTUS to "smack the taste out of their months" the courts that said otherwise. Those other courts KNEW they were on thin ice but "feelz" matter more to them the the actual LAW and actual EOs so they went with their "feelz". They should be sanctioned at the least.

Drago said...

Todd: "I think though, that is the defense and I would like to see that upheld in court. That what a politician "says" as rhetoric has no bearing on what the actual legislation or EO says. I would love for SCOTUS to "smack the taste out of their months" the courts that said otherwise."

The SC already has, which makes the lower court rulings and the support for those rulings from...certain quarters (wink wink), even more egregious.

Birches said...

Even if Ginsburg died tomorrow, she will be on the court until January 20th 2021 at a minimum.

Do you think the Dems would be able to pull it off? If it happened in 2020, I'd say they have a chance, but anytime before then? I don't see how it serves their purposes. They'd just have a lot of 5-3 decisions and Trump would still be able to campaign on it. I know I'd vote to reelect him if it came to that.

Molly said...

Rabel: "This could have been sloppiness or slyness " I vote slyness. I think there was a strong desire to get unanimity, and being too clear on this might have eliminated that; plus since there was agreement to stay the injunction, and agreement to hear the case and decide on the merits in the fall, there was no reason to make a clear statement about that part of the merits here (and probably reason to avoid that). I suspect some justices (or perhaps clerks) were impatient to make the point that "reading things into political speeches is stupid". This paragraph could have been written to make it more clear that it was just listing the arguments made by govt, and it was not written in this way.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Larvell said...The government cannot make speech about certain classes off-limits, nor can it compel speech simply because it is supportive of a protected class

I genuinely wish I was as confident of that as you are! Positive vs normative: I agree the gov. SHOULD NOT be able to (given the 1A)...
Certainly free association is limited by the government's ability to prevent discrimination of certain kinds, esp. against members of protected classes.
The speech in this case is tied up/intertwined with non-speech actions/behaviors, specifically actions of a commercial nature.

I understand the argument that the business' decision to not provide a specific service should be seen as nothing more than a Constitutionally-protected free speech expression, but I am not at all sure the Court will frame nor analyze the case in that way.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "In the past, after unremitting attacks on me personally, I have returned the favor in certain select cases. Drago is one such asshole"

It is not my fault that you routinely assert to posters here that you are a "lifelong republican".


I'll bet that you can't find a single occasion in the last year where I referred to myself as a "lifelong Republican." And, I'll bet there have been few days in the last year when you have missed an opportunity to try to ridicule me with that term. Most days, in the last year, I think you have used the term to attack me.

My bland reference long ago was to the fact that I am like a lot of Republicans who view Trump, personally, with loathing and revulsion. It is true for me, and I think it is probably true for the majority of current, sitting, Republican governors and a great many former Republican governors. It's just not an uncommon view.

And of course my point all along has been that the response of the likes of Drago, when I criticize Trump, is to attack me personally. Not meeting the substance of the Trump criticism. So I criticize Trump, and Drago falsely accuses me of being a liberal, a leftist, a Democrat, whatever. And then, taking yet another Althouse comments page off-topic.

It is of course a wholly Trumpian thing; attack your critics in the harshest and most personal way(s) possible. As loudly as possible, and avoiding any high-level or nuanced discussion. Just basic, low-level gutpunch stuff.

As I say; I am not Althouse but if I were I'd ban Drago and his ilk.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "I'll bet that you can't find a single occasion in the last year where I referred to myself as a "lifelong Republican."

Why would the last year be the decisive time window?

Like Trump, don't all your earlier comments going back years have relevance?

According to your own assessment of others, including Trump, comments going back years are perfectly relevant.

But now your into starker relief: you desire a special poster status whereby the rules you operate under cannot be used by others.

As Teh Donald might say, #Sad!

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "My bland reference long ago..."

Oh, right. So now bland references are to be treated differently somehow to regular references.

My, you certainly do offer up a cornucopia of rationale for treating you differently than you treat others.

Tsk tsk.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "As I say; I am not Althouse but if I were I'd ban Drago and his ilk."

As I say, I get that alot from leftist fascists who often have anger and control issues.

Chuck said...

Drago, you mendacious douchebag; you claimed that I "routinely" referred to myself as a "lifelong Republican."

That is untrue. Only once or twice have I ever done so. As I explained. And it was largely because of jackasses like you, personally attacking me for being something (a liberal Democrat) that I am not.

You, on the other hand DO "routinely" refer to me as a "lifelong Republican." You developed your own acronym -- "LLR" -- for it. You are the living embodiment of "projection."

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

As I say; I am not Althouse but if I were I'd ban Drago and his ilk.

So would Inga. You are more like the brownshirts on college campuses than you are a "conservative."

Hatred of Trump is not uncommon among political class republicans. But it is very uncommon among republican voters. That speaks to the disconnect between DC who hates the electorate and most of the country that hates DC.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And it was largely because of jackasses like you, personally attacking me for being something (a liberal Democrat) that I am not."

Tsk tsk

I have never called you a liberal Democrat.

I do call you what you yourself called yourself: a "lifelong republican".

So there you have it. Falsely accusing me having falsely accused you of something.

It's clear now that you weren't kidding about wanting special posting rules for yourself compared to others.

#VerySad

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "Drago, you mendacious douchebag; ..."

Tsk tsk.

I certainly hope that the lovely, brilliant and delightful Althouse and the equally handsome and thoughtful Sir Meade do not come across that unchivalrous comment.

You Sir, are no gentleman.

Now Good Day!

Chuck said...

Achilles I would not ban anyone for liking Trump and defending him. Wouldn't Althouse herself fall at least partly into that category? I'd never presume to -- I could never even imagine -- banning the blog hostess herself.

But what others do NOT do, is to attack me personally. To name names of other commenters, and turn comments pages into personal back-and-forth arguments about themselves.

That happens with me, on almost a daily basis here. And never, do I initiate it.

My guess is that Althouse must think that on balance it hurts her blog. As much as she might hate getting into daily moderation fights.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "But what others do NOT do, is to attack me personally."

If you insist upon categorizing the repeating of your own assertions back to you as personal attacks, then I'm afraid you will continue to have difficulty here.

Be strong laddie. Buck up.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And it was largely because of jackasses like you, personally attacking me for being something (a liberal Democrat) that I am not."

Tsk tsk

I have never called you a liberal Democrat.
...
6/26/17, 2:18 PM


About 75 minutes earlier, and only about 20 posts up:

Drago said...
"lifelong republican" and "CNN Reporting Accuracy" Fanboy Chuck: "If I were Althouse, I'd ban you. I think she should. I hope she does."

I get that all the time from left wing fascists.

6/26/17, 1:01 PM

Drago said...

It is absolutely true "lifelong republican" Chuck. I get that "ban" stuff all the time from left wing fascists.

So what was your point again?

You aren't claiming I called YOU a left wing fascist are you?

tsk tsk

Why, I did just the opposite: I explicitly called you a "lifelong republican".

You're welcome.

Drago said...

In the interest of fair play, I would like to cordially invite "lifelong republican" Chuck to explain how he arrived at his CNN accuracy claim of only "one in 100,000 stories" being wrong.

I think it would be a rewarding exercise for all for Chuck to share his specific "lifelong republican" methodology for such an aggressive assertion of CNN accuracy.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
In the interest of fair play, I would like to cordially invite "lifelong republican" Chuck to explain how he arrived at his CNN accuracy claim of only "one in 100,000 stories" being wrong.


I never made such a claim. And this, you assclown, is how Althouse comments pages depart from the topics she raises, into endless personal back-and-forths.

Pookie Number 2 said...



I honestly don't know enough about how Christian morality translates into religious legislation - is everything considered immoral prohibited(. Based on the little I do know, there are many, many books defining Jewish law, so it's easier for me to identify examples of coercion against Jewish law.

Mark said...

Why is Drago allowed to ruin this and other threads?

He isn't even trying to have a discussion and is worse that the accounts Althouse deletes, at least of late.

Pookie Number 2 said...

And again as I have written previously today, nobody is actually "defending" Trump's own dumbass language from the campaign and his Twitter account, concerning travel bans. The formal argument is that the federal courts should pay no heed to those statements and that they do not matter in terms of real policy. Some "defense."

No defense is offered, because none is needed. Trump's communications are correctly understood to be a repudiation of the ridiculous constraints of political correctness at the expense of common sense. The only people that cavil about their blustery imprecision are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to care.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I never made such a claim. And this, you assclown, is how Althouse comments pages depart from the topics she raises, into endless personal back-and-forths."
6/26/17, 2:50 PM

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "> Where do these rank, on the lyin' fake news scale:
At the bottom; they aren't news nor are they relevant to the current topic.
Well CNN isn't running for anything. CNN is not making policy inside the White House. What an insane fucking joke; that what CNN says in reporting one of 100,000 news stories is more consequential than what the President of the United States says."
6/24/17, 4:57 PM

My my.

Drago said...

Mark: "He isn't even trying to have a discussion and is worse that the accounts Althouse deletes, at least of late."

I understand why you are so upset. The make-believe "REASONS!!" the leftist judges gave for their ridiculous rulings have been tossed with a final bludgeon to the death to occur in October.

This is upsetting to the leftists and to Chuck because, per usual, Chuck lent credence to the make-believe theories used by the left-wing whacko so-called Judges because "Trump".

He doesn't like it pointed out, even though the Supreme Court just reminded him and you about that. And it's clear that you don't like anyone pushing back on Chucks pathetic attempts to keep the focus on the very things (prior statements/tweets) that the Supreme Court properly ignored.

So go ahead. Pretend you are trying to have some highbrow discussion about the merits of the case. The Supreme Court just paddled your intellectual rears to let you know that what is under discussion is not what you say it is.

Better get Inga over here for some quick cut and pastes amigo. You're going to need it.

Chuck said...

And nowhere in that, Drago, did I assert that "only 1 in 100,000 CNN stories is wrong."

Now here is a link to that comments page, starting with my first comment where I mentioned five horrendous Trump whoppers, trying to put into context the error which CNN seems to have admitted and tried to correct, under pressure to do so:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/06/cnn-has-admitted-it-printed-what.html?showComment=1498339735446#c2170945509945687609

And you can later see, in context, what I later wrote. And which Drago has butchered, as usual, in this comments thread.

Inga said...

"Chuck said...
As I say; I am not Althouse but if I were I'd ban Drago and his ilk."

Achilles said...
"So would Inga. You are more like the brownshirts on college campuses than you are a "conservative.""
----------------------------

Nope. I've never asked Althouse to ban anyone. If I wanted to avoid obnoxious people, I wouldn't comment here at all.

Inga said...

"Better get Inga over here for some quick cut and pastes amigo. You're going to need it."

Drago, you're worse than one who cuts and pastes articles from informative and interesting news outlets. Your comments are repetitive drec, in which you manically post the same shit directed at the same people every single time you comment. It's beyond tedious and boring reading your attacks on others that often end up in endless back and forths. It's difficult to not want to defend oneself against the likes of trolls like Drago, but I've found it's best to counter a few times and then depart the thread, until he's gone. He's not clever, he's not original and he's not entertaining, he doesn't offer new information or insights, in other words he's human refuse that stinks up the comments section.

Rabel said...

Idiocracy II: The Comments Section.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I find Drago very entertaining.

Quaestor said...

Althouse wrote: So it's like accusing a clothes store of sex discrimination because they only sell women's clothes?

I think it's more like trying to compel a kosher deli to serve pork.

gregq said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Larvell said...The government cannot make speech about certain classes off-limits, nor can it compel speech simply because it is supportive of a protected class

I genuinely wish I was as confident of that as you are! Positive vs normative: I agree the gov. SHOULD NOT be able to (given the 1A)...


Go check out Matel v Tam, AKA "The Slants" case. There wasn't a single vote for the idea that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect offensive speech.

If the Supremes are even remotely honest on this one, it would be 9 - 0 for the cake shop. Since Sotomayor (and apparently RBG) are consumed by their hatred of religion and the religious, it will at most be 7 - 2.

Drago said...

Chuck: "And nowhere in that, Drago, did I assert that "only 1 in 100,000 CNN stories is wrong."

And nowhere in here did I call you a left wing fascist: "I get that all the time from left wing fascists."

Again, you want different rules for you, lest your anger problems reemerge.

Drago said...

Inga: "Drago, you're worse than one who cuts and pastes articles from informative and interesting news outlets."

LOL

Well, if YOU say those articles are "informative and interesting", such as the articles about the fake "Russian dossier", or how Trump was under investigation, or any of the other articles you have cut and pasted from that we learned were incorrect and/or total fabrications, who can complain, eh?

Why should I take those sources, with their track record of accuracy, and give them any credence at all?

Pianoman said...

Looking forward to finding out whether I can be compelled by the government to play piano for a gay ceremony.

It's not hyperbole. I have gay relatives that are thinking about getting "married", and may *demand* that I play their ceremony. They might not take "no' or "Hell No" or "F No" for an answer. After all, I've played everyone else's wedding, and It's The Same Thing You Hater, Because Homophobia, or something.

Drago said...

Pianoman: "Looking forward to finding out whether I can be compelled by the government to play piano for a gay ceremony."

If it is a gay wedding there will also be expectations as to the degree of "fabulousness" of your playing.

But you do pose an interesting question.

Pianoman said...

Well, yeah. I mean, why would *anyone's* "lack of participation" be excluded? What makes a "baker" or "photographer" so special? There's lots of people involved in wedding ceremonies, including musicians.

Is my piano playing considered "speech"?

Can I be compelled to perform in a gay "wedding" if I have played for weddings in the past?

If not, then WHY not?

Drago said...

Pianoman: "Well, yeah. I mean, why would *anyone's* "lack of participation" be excluded?"

Hmmm.

Could ambling window shoppers be roped in against their will to act as witnesses or participants in a gay wedding?

Remember, in middle-end-state-leftism everything that is not outlawed is compulsory.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Be strong laddie. Buck up.

6/26/17, 2:29 PM

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, you don't make the cooks turn off the stove.

Chuck, ultimately your problems are threefold:

you're boring;
the truth is not in you;
and you have fantastic, absurd notions.

How are we supposed to believe you're a lawyer when you make noises about slander/libel protection as an anomymous poster?

How are we supposed to believe you're a Life Long Republican (and no, you're never going to live that one down; you wanted to be hateful, you've succeeded marvelously, and such is the price of success) when, among other things, I never remember to have seen you engage a declared or self-evidently leftish poster? Why are you never contending with Arm, Once, Inga, Freder, Ritmo, harrogate or any of the others, but only commenters on the right?

-------

Now was that above whatever it is you object to in postings? If so, you are pretty much unprepared to hear about yourself.

Inga said...

"Why are you never contending with Arm, Once, Inga, Freder, Ritmo, harrogate or any of the others, but only commenters on the right."

Because we don't attack him relentlessly. You folks seemed to like him enough before the advent of Trump. The man dares to go against Trump as a conservative and he's made into a pariah here in Trumpland.

Seeing Red said...

We may have to go back in the archives for Inga. Maybe not banning, but I distinctly remember whining cos she got p'owned and cried for help, played the victim card, yada, yada.

I think her responses to the Benghazi video thread(s) was enlightening.

Seeing Red said...

Ginsberg sleeps so much how can you tell?

Gahrie said...

Sorry everyone this is off topic:

@chuck

I'll bet that you can't find a single occasion in the last year where I referred to myself as a "lifelong Republican."

Wait...are you claiming that you didn't refer to yourself as a lifelong Republican? Because I was probably one of the first to call you on that bullshit because i was so astonished you did it. I know you referred to yourself that way.

I would not be surprised to find out that you have since deleted that post.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Pianoman said...
Looking forward to finding out whether I can be compelled by the government to play piano for a gay ceremony.

It's not hyperbole. I have gay relatives that are thinking about getting "married", and may *demand* that I play their ceremony. They might not take "no' or "Hell No" or "F No" for an answer. After all, I've played everyone else's wedding, and It's The Same Thing You Hater, Because Homophobia, or something.


Not only will you be forced to play, but you darn well better buy them a fabulous wedding gift or else ...

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Drago said...

Could ambling window shoppers be roped in against their will to act as witnesses or participants in a gay wedding?


No, don't be silly. It's just that freedom-loving liberals will publish them names and addresses in the paper and their employers will be notified of their lack of cooperation if they refuse.

PackerBronco said...

OpenID gregq said...

If the Supremes are even remotely honest on this one, it would be 9 - 0 for the cake shop. Since Sotomayor (and apparently RBG) are consumed by their hatred of religion and the religious, it will at most be 7 - 2.


I predict a 5-4 ruling that is extremely narrowly tailored towards the cake baker using the logic of the Hobby Lobby decision.

Drago said...

Inga: "Because we don't attack him relentlessly."

Why would you attack a bedfellow?

When one adopts leftist fantasy talking points and rationales, one opens oneself up to appropriate challenge.

I know that lefties don't understand that, which is why the left inevitably, in every forum everywhere, creates safespaces and outlaws opposing thoughts.

JAORE said...

"I'll bet that you can't find a single occasion in the last year where I referred to myself as a "lifelong Republican."

I wire homes for a living, but no one calls me sparky.

I've won the bowling league high score three years running, but does anyone call me "striker"?

Yet, you suck a dick just ONE time....

Swede said...

Today was a good day.

Kirk Parker said...

Chuck,

"My bland reference long ago was to the fact that I am like a lot of Republicans who view Trump, personally, with loathing and revulsion."

So, you out yourself as Part Of The Problem™. Noted.

Kirk Parker said...

Martin,

"How does the official at the airport, processing a planeload of people, determine whether each and every person X has a bonafide relationship that would permit entry?"

That's not now it works*. It's the consular official, in the country of origin or current residence, determining whether each and every visa applicant has a bonafide relationship that would permit granting of a visa to enter. The burden of proof is on the applicant, not on the consular official; and in general those decisions are unreviewable.

---------------------------------------
*More specifically, that's not how it works for countries-of-origin from which visitors to the US are required to have visas. Vice versa, too: Last time I traveled to East Africa, Kenya was still granting visas-on-arrival to US passport holders, which is kind of like not requiring visas. They keep threatening to discontinue that option, though, so I played it safe and got a visa in advance.