Download Edited Version Of 303 Creative v. Elenis From Barnett/Blackman Supplement

I have now finished editing 303 Creative v. Elenis. After all the behemoth opinions, this supplement case is a blessedly-short 18 pages: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/303-Creative.pdf

I promise, I'll have some commentary over the weekend. I have lots of posts in the queue.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are any professors who assign this book not Federalist Society wingnuts?

[Shamie Ervin iv]

A contract is a contract is a contract. Deal with it.

And btw, wtf is the interest rate on a student loan?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are the people in government raising the interest rates on student loans?

[Gandydancer]

Why not? Interest should be related to inflation, no?.

[blue-heron]

People had no problem bailing out the banks or paying for military expenditures at ten times the bid cost. But god forbid you help poor students...

[Gandydancer]

With money from a less well off, less well connected cohort?

[damikesc]

Yup, Tea Party had no problems with that. At all. Really. Did not generate out of nothing to protest bailing out banks and all...

[Toranth]

As Damikesc points out, there was so much objection to the bank bailouts that it permanently changed US politics. About 45% of the country objected, in fact. More might have objected, except that only about half the country admitted they had any understanding of the problem or the government's "solution". (Pew, 2008)

As for your "military expenditures" complaint, you're going to need to expand upon it, because it makes zero sense as written.

[blue-heron]

Not that hard to read and understand. Let's look at the F-35 joint strike fighter. Now $183 billion over original cost estimates and we keep writing the check.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106047#:~:text=The%20F%2D35%20Lightning%20II,and%20systems%20over%20its%20lifetime.

We have no problem with corporate welfare but god forbid we help poor students. values, again.

[Toranth]

You have a bizarre idea of what "corporate welfare" is, if you think that's what selling extremely rare and complicated high-tech devices to the government.

In addition, the F-35 program, despite being one of the worst managed acquisition programs the DOD has run (which is saying a lot) is currently running about 50% over original estimates, with per unit costs 66% down from the 2007, and down 33% from the 2010 contract your link is referencing as the base.
1.5 times is a far cry from 10 times.

And finally - your "poor students" are predominantly rich people, leeching money from lesser-educated tax payers to renege on a debt they voluntarily took on. Values? Hell, yeah, paying your debts is a good value. Demanding the government take from others to pay your debts because you don't want to? That's bad values.
It's obvious which ones you hold.

[blue-heron]

I was talking in general about our willingness to accept gross overages on defense purchases. But okay, I will bite. How about 400x what real costs should be? Did you read about the swell $52 thousand dollar trash cans we just bought? Sorry, $51,606.12. No thanks, I will just run down to Target.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/20/the-pentagons-52000-trash-can/

[blue-heron]

And back to the F-35. Costs have gotten so high that they have had to split the program into separate blocks or risk cancellation. And they appear to be hiding costs and playing three card monte with the American taxpayer.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/strategy-policy-is-the-f-35-program-too-big-to-manage/

“The program’s cost-reporting mechanisms do not fully explain the reasons for cost growth,” the GAO reported. “For example, DOD’s reports to Congress on Block 4 cost growth do not distinguish higher-than-expected costs for previously planned Block 4 capabilities from growth due to adding new capabilities. Consequently, Congress does not have a complete picture of escalating F-35 modernization costs.”

"If Block 4 and the F135 engine upgrade were separate from the overall F-35 program, GAO said, each would be a Major Defense Acquisition Program in its own right. Each would also be subject to the Nunn-McCurdy acquisition law, which requires the Pentagon to notify Congress when cost increases rise by 15 percent—“significant”—or 25 percent—“critical”—or when total costs grow 50 percent beyond the originally predicted program cost.

Unless the Secretary of Defense certifies the vital importance of such overages, programs experiencing that level of cost growth are subject to automatic termination.

The critical nature of the F-35 ensures no one is likely to press for cancellation. But because Block 4 and the engine upgrade are hidden within the overall program, GAO said it’s extremely hard to understand how well these two efforts are progressing."

A trillion seven on an out of cost control airplane or helping poor kids, hmmm?

[Toranth]

Ooooh, my. There are levels of ignorance, and you are rapidly ascending through them.

Custom parts that are not manufactured anymore cost a great deal to start making again. You know where else you can get a trashcan exactly the right size and shape for your plane, also already certified for use? You don't? Well, you can make your own then! Of course, it'll cost more than that to make the damn thing and certify it, but what does that have to do with your complaints?

And "Blocks" are standard in every major contract. They're simply development cycles. As technology improves, or requirements change, new blocks are contracted to be developed. Having many blocks is not a sign of poor controls or development process; it's expected in any program that isn't killed right away. The F-16 flew in 1974; block 72 is currently being sold to India. Expect many more F-35 blocks over the 70 year program lifespan and 3000+ planes your budget estimate includes.

Half the complaints you borrow are about the DoD's overall contracting practices, which are valid - the DoD regularly fails to account for tens of billions of dollars, and it's major acquisitions have been rife with trouble for longer than you've been alive. Trying to assign those to the F-35 program is ignorance piled on stupidity.

But hey, complaining about military expenditures that produce useful goods instead of paying off the debts of wealthy people that voluntarily took out loans and are capable of repaying them certainly makes you feel good, I see. Enjoy yourself - it's a dumb and immoral position, but you are entitled to indulge in it.

[blue-heron]

Oh, I didn’t know they were ‘magic’ trash cans and so valuable. You want to believe that swill, go ahead, the truth is they have us bent over and there is a pipeline of armed services procurement officers that go right to the trough and hose us bigly when they are done with DOD. Reading further in the article:

"In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.

Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.

The examples revealed here represent only a small portion of what experts say is a pattern of contractors overcharging DoD for a wide range of parts and weapons systems, a practice that reduces military readiness and drives up spending. A recent investigation by 60 Minutes highlighted rampant price gouging in the arms industry, including one case in which Boeing overcharged taxpayers by more than half a billion dollars for missiles used in the Patriot missile defense system."

Take your condescending attitude and send it up your own tail fuselage. It may work with the circular onanism echo chamber of VC but it doesn’t work in the slightest with me.

[Toranth]

Custom designed components that you cannot get anywhere else cost a lot. Shock! Surprise! Have you ever tried to get parts for an old car? Or to repair an old piece of consumer electronics? Same thing. It's the difficulty in getting them, not in the parts themselves, that raises the cost.

You have no idea how government acquisition programs work, as plainly evinced by the fact you still think that 'blocks' in a program or that companies wanting to make a profit are a bad thing.

Of course presenting facts and logic doesn't work on you; you're exactly the sort of person that hangs out in r/antiwork and r/latestagecapitalism - brainless, ignorant, opinionated, and extremely proud of it.

[blue-heron]

"Poor students" are predominately rich people? Really?
https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-race

Black and African American college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than White college graduates.
Four years after graduation, Black students owe an average of 188% more than White students borrowed.
Black and African American student borrowers are the most likely to struggle financially due to student loan debt making monthly payments of $250.

Those rich black kids are sure gaming the system, aren't they?

[Toranth]

Notice that the amount of debt is not the amount of income?
In fact, they have little-to-nothing to do with each other. Do you think the lawyer with $250,000 in debt must be making even less money than the average black graduate you point to here?
Well, you might, but literate people capable of rational thought wouldn't.

As it happens, the average debt owed by a college grad in the poorest income quintile is about $11,000. The average college debt owed by the fourth quintile is about $12,000. Only the top 20% of income earners have a significantly higher debt - and the majority of it is by doctors and lawyers whose income is will over $100,000.
The vast majority of college debt is owed by people in the top quintile, with 60% of it owed by people making $100,000 or more. Those making above median income account for more than 80% of all college debt.

So, yes, discharging college loans would benefit rich people far, far more than poor people.

Incidentally, I notice you equate "poor" with "black". Are you really so prejudiced as to think those are same thing?

[blue-heron]

Imagine me thinking that young black students weren't rich...

[Toranth]

Glad you admit that you were utterly incorrect, wrong in every respect, and arguing from ignorance and irrelevance in addition to being a racist bigot, but can't you manage anything better in response than elementary school sarcasm?

[blue-heron]

I'm scared to look. My take. https://www.blueheronblast.com/2023/06/the-turtle-and-old-hickory.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

"But we are a long way from that, we now have a majority papist court (including the one Episcopalian) and if they have their way, we will all be soon toeing the Vatican line. Get ready for those wafers, kids."

As a WASP Protestant, I find that comment incredibly offensive.

While I never watched the show, "A Handmaid's Tale" doesn't really apply to a woman whose husband stayed home with their children because she was making way more money than he.

And as to Merritt Garland -- a worse and more corrupt AG than even John Mitchell -- God help us if he had wound up on the court.

I couldn't make it any further into your diatribe. And "Paptists" is a slur right up there with "Niggers" and highly inappropriate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy thanks you for that vile racial slur. It will free up some holiday weekend time the right-wing law professors otherwise would have devoted to searching for an opportunity to publish a vile racial slur with plausible deniability.

[blue-heron]

My use of the term papist was honestly intended to be descriptive rather than pejorative. Apologies to any that I may have offended. But as Gorsuch so aptly noted, offensive speech must be tolerated in a free society so we might as well start here.

[David Nieporent]

My use of the term papist was honestly intended to be descriptive rather than pejorative.

And Donald Trump honestly believed he had the right to steal classified documents. Pull the other one.

Not only that, but your understanding of the facts and law is nonexistent. (A court case is not a "bill," for instance; the Roberts court is far less likely to overturn precedents than most prior courts; and the Court absolutely reflects the views of the populace on racial preferences in college admissions).

Unrelatedly, "the racist genocidaire Andrew Jackson was admirable because he shot someone who insulted his wife" is certainly a take.

[blue-heron]

I wouldn't say that the Roberts court view on affirmative action reflects the views of the populace, the polls are very mixed. White people tend to think so by a small majority, black people do not.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4071065-mellman-pro-or-con-on-affirmative-action/

"A robust 63 percent said the court should not prohibit consideration of race in admissions, while just over a third said such considerations should be prohibited."

[Gandydancer]

The whole point of a constitution is to somewhat restrain majoritarianism.

And I expect that those numbers are deeply affected by how the question is phrased. E.g., “not prohibit consideration” hardly describes honestly the weight of the thumb Harvard and UNC were putting on the scales and, I strongly suspect (see the University of California AFTER consideration of race was prohibited in CA’s Constitution) will continue to be placed on the scales. The Wokeists in charge will not be discouraged from taking racist actions by mere Supreme Court rulings.

[blue-heron]

They have certainly restrained majoritarianism to the nth degree. Since 1981, the Republicans have only won the presidential popular vote once, yet we have a six to three split on the court and it is operating in the most partisan manner imaginable.

I have no problem with Catholics, Baptists, Jews, scientologists, frisbeeterians or any other religion. But it is a feature of human psychology that they will revert to the moral conditioning inculcated from childhood when sitting in judgement, and they have. I am not a Catholic and prefer that society be able to make its own moral decisions, especially in regards to reproductive rights.

I would like our highest court to represent a wider smattering of beliefs and pluralism in this country than six Catholics, an Episcopalian raised Catholic, a protestant and a Jew. One would hope that they somewhat mirrored the political consensus in this country and they plainly do not. But we got what we got. And it is certainly preferable than to be ruled by a tribunal of sophist incels parading under the flag of libertarianism.

[Gandydancer]

"I wouldn’t say that the Roberts court view on affirmative action reflects the views of the populace, the polls are very mixed. White people tend to think so by a small majority, black people do not."

The ABC/Ipsos poll I link to downthread shows a 52%-32% approval of the Harvard/UNC decision. You lose.

Abnd of course the "Catholics" include Sotomayor. So the idea that they "revert to the moral conditioning inculcated from childhood" is clearly bogus.

For a State institution like UNC to racially discriminate clearly violates the equal protection provision of the 14A. And, as to Harvard, it's clearly possible to prohibit it from doing so under the Bob Jones U. precedent. Complaining that you can't get enough Democrat judges to ignore the Constitution the way you want it ignored gets no sympathy from me.

[AmosArch]

Most polls show a very convincing margin against affirmative action. As in what would be considered a landslide if it was an election. Jumbling words around to try to get the result you want does not lend support to your beliefs.

[blue-heron]

No they don't.

[Gandydancer]

University of Massachusetts national poll
“Majority of Americans oppose affirmative action”
https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/06/new-umass-poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-affirmative-action.html

Reuters/Ipsos poll:
"Most Americans think college admissions should not consider race"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-americans-think-college-admissions-should-not-consider-race-reutersipsos-2023-02-15/

etc.

It's not like UMass & Reuters are based outlets.

[blue-heron]

He said by a "very convincing margin." It is all in the wording and different polls show different conclusions nationally. From the Hill article I cite:

"For instance, by 58 percent to 29 percent, respondents say they “support programs that are aimed at increasing racial diversity of students on college campuses” and by 49 percent to 37 percent respondents say, “Due to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are necessary to help create equality.”

"Similarly, NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist found 57 percent wanting to continue affirmative action programs, while just 38 percent wanted to see them “abolished.”"

Doesn't sound like a convincing margin to me.

[Gandydancer]

Nothing is going to sound convincing to someone determined to not be convinced.

Here’s another:

ABC News/Ipsos poll: “… a bare majority of Americans (52%) approve of the decision to overturn affirmative action with a third (32%) disapproving."
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-recent-supreme-court-decisions/
(The author is trying really hard to minimize that 20% gap, even replacing his original headline with "52%-- 32%" in it to make it less obvious, the initial attempt at spin — “a bare majority” — being deemed insufficient.)

[blue-heron]

During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).

Nor is Chief Justice Roberts’s voting record in precedent-overturning cases ideologically balanced. Quite to the contrary, his track record in such cases is among the most partisan of any Supreme Court Justice in the modern era.

Fifteen of the 21 precedent-overturning cases that Roberts presided over ended in split 5-4 decisions with liberal and conservative blocs aligned against one another. In these 15 ideologically-charged cases, Roberts’s voting record lines up almost perfectly with his partisanship. He voted to overturn precedent in all 11 of the 15 cases with a conservative outcome, and in just 1 of the 4 cases with a liberal outcome (25%).

In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).

Chief Justice Roberts is one of only two justices since 1946 to support 100% of decisions overturning precedent that led to conservative outcomes.

Roberts’s record in precedent-overturning cases is the second-most conservative among 37 justices who have ruled in at least 5 precedent-overturning cases since 1946. With 84% conservative votes in precedent-overturning cases, Roberts only trails Justice Alito’s 88%.

https://www.takebackthecourt.today/chief-justice-roberts-almost-always-votes-overturn-precedent

[Gandydancer]

Given the atrociousness of those precedents that makes Roberts sound better than I would have thought. And the rest of SCOTUS (except Thomas) worse.

[blue-heron]

Whatever, I was responding to a categorically false statement by Nieporent.

[Gandydancer]

So you say. But your performance here, insisting on a complete misunderstanding of the case under discussion, does not inspire confidence. Instead of parsing the statistics in the dubious way you do, there's this, much simpler, take:

JONATHAN H. ADLER: "[...]the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedents at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. The Roberts Court, on the other hand, has only overturned an average of 1.6 precedents per term."
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/08/the-stare-decisis-court/

[Dr. Ed 2]

First, saying that A = B does *not* mean that I approve of B, merely that I don't approve of A, either.

Second, you are reiterating the bigotry that was directed towards Jack Kennedy -- "...we will all be soon toeing the Vatican line. Get ready for those wafers, kids," Exactly what basis do you have for believing this?

There are a lot of reasons why Kennedy was a terrible President, his
drug-fueled administration was hurtling out of control, he got us *into* Vietnam and had just assassinated South Vietnam's President Diem (a fellow Catholic) -- see: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/vietnam/2020-11-01/new-light-dark-corner-evidence-diem-coup-november-1963

Read Howie Carr's two "Kennedy Babylon" books for more -- the problem was that the whole family was corrupt, not that they were Catholics.

Third, there is a BIG difference between tolerating hateful speech and *accepting* it -- you have the right to be a bigot, but I have the right to call you on it. You can go with the paranoid delusion that SCOTUS is going to impose mandatory church attendance -- it ain't gonna happen, there's nothing indicating that any of the Catholic justices would support it, nor that the country would tolerate it. (Most Catholics wouldn't, this isn't the 1950s anymore.)

And posing RCB as a handmaiden - cute. You have the right to write that -- and I have the right not to read it.

[blue-heron]

Who is RCB? ACB openly called herself a handmaiden, it was not a term foisted upon her. And of course they would not call for mandatory church attendance, it is actually much more pernicious having to be judged by their internal moral calculus. That is what I resent, the tyranny of the minority.

[Sarcastr0]

A certain set wish there were an N-word for them. They pretend papist or cracker has the same bite. It's pretty sad watching them try and gin up outrage they don't feel.

[blue-heron]

Yeah, they doth protest too much...

[Cheerio]

That's true, but there's also plenty of fake outrage on the other side (e.g., when people pretend that quoting a slur is the same as using it...).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you referring to someone who quotes that slur once or twice, or some disaffected conservative asshole who publishes it habitually and cultivates a following of right-wing bigots who use it regularly?

[Cheerio]

I agree the distinction you raise is valid, but a first amendment scholar like EV might have occasion to quote more than "once or twice" for purely analytical purposes without having any nefarious intentions.

Commenters are another story, of course...but EV has mentioned that he mutes some...so we can't even know what he's aware of with that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you want to try to guess how many times (at least) the Volokh Conspiracy has published vile racial slurs during 2023? 2022? 2021? (Not the number of vile racial slurs, but the number of posts/comments containing vile racial slurs, frequently multiple racial slurs in an exchange counted but once?)

Do you figure you would be able to find a law professor (outside the Bob Jones/Ave Maria context) who publishes vile racial slurs half as often as Eugene Volokh, or find a "legal" blog that publishes vile racial slurs half as often as the Volokh Conspiracy?

Should the Volokh Conspiracy receive a pass with respect to its incessant stream of homophobic slurs, antisemitic slurs, misogynistic slurs, Islamophobic slurs, xenophobic slurs, and other expressions of disgusting right-wing bigotry?

The story about comments is that Prof. Volokh has vanished comments and banned commenters a number of times but never seems to address the innumerable comments involving bigoted slurs, which get the matador treatment (waved right through) by this blog's management.

[Cheerio]

Admittedly I don't track this blog as meticulously as you seem to. But on any given post I've seen by EV himself, where such a quotation appeared, there didn't appear to be any purposeful usage involved.

I agree that EV should be both consistent and transparent with any content moderation, and would like to see the blog put more effort into that. But alas, it's not up to me. In any event, it seems like his recent/current approach is to simply waive everything through and let people (including the bloggers themselves) decide whom to mute...

[Gandydancer]

* wave

And of course EV's usage is "purposeful". The purpose isn't to slur anyone or any group, however.

Artie is of course both tedious and hypocritical.

[Gandydancer]

Is so-very-Woke Wikipedia racist?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is a blog that publishes vile racial slurs on 50 occasions (that's 50 post/comment exchanges, not merely 50 racial slurs; many of those exchanges featured multiple racial slurs) in a 30-month period racist?

Turns out that's a trick question, because only 48 discussions at the Volokh Conspiracy have featured vile racial slurs during the most recent two-and-one-half years.

Carry on, clingers.

(The Volokh Conspiracy is entitled to publish vile racial slurs so often as the proprietor wishes. Bigoted, cowardly, hypocrites have rights, too.)

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, you do. But your lies about EV personally are easily disproved.

Me, I’m happy to call fags fags or homos and trannys trannys, and both of them “perverts”, but haven’t found any occasion to call blacks niggers that I can recall. Not ruling it out if I find one particularly offensive, though. It may be an appropriate term for a race hustler like, say, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Enemies should be treated like enemies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to young Black men using it?

[Sarcastr0]

but there’s also plenty of fake outrage on the other side

Sort of agree - I think people are sincerely outraged on the other side, but way out of proportion to the reaction they think they are entitled to.

On the right they get hot fast and then cool down fast. As though they aren't even really outraged.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are you so okay with slurring normal people while taking such umbrage at their offense?

[Gandydancer]

"Cracker" has "bite" for whom? It's as shruggable as "racist" or "deplorable".

I'd bet the Orangemen have less polite synonyms for "papist" than those you are aware of.

And there's "Romanist" and probably "Pope-lickers".

[blue-heron]

Always liked mackerel snappers personally.

[Gandydancer]

You lost me, but I see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackerel_snapper

Wikipedia also has this, but it's not very colorful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-Catholic_slurs

Again, I'm sure the N. Irish Protestants can do better.

[Nige]

You could go to Northen Ireand for some proper sectarian slurs, but I'm not sure they'd travel.

[blue-heron]

The Handmaid refers to her membership in the People of praise, a religious group that stresses the subordination of women to men in the family and church. Doesn't matter how much money she makes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/07/what-does-it-mean-that-amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-a-religious-group/?sh=198ce0038932

"While several other former members assert there is no disparity in the treatment of men and women, a 1997 academic analysis by Notre Dame philosophy professor Adrian Reimers, one of People of Praise’s earliest members, identified the group’s fundamental principle as the Biblical writing that the husband is the “head” and the wife must “submit in all things.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers in general and the Volokh Conspiracy in particular do not like it when Justice Barrett's handmaid status is mentioned.

[blue-heron]

Barrett is one of the few women they appear to like, probably because of her subordinate leanings. I have a hard time understanding the out of proportion misogyny directed to practically any other politician or judge, Hillary, Harris, Kagen, Sotomayor, etc. Must be an incel thing.

[Gandydancer]

The "having a hard time understanding" bit is all you.
See my comment about your having no understanding of this case at all, above.

"Kagen", btw, is not in my experience as despised as the other three, who have fully earned it. So it's not their gender that causes it. And of course ACB is not as despised by others as she is by me, which further proves the point.

[damikesc]

People dislike women they disagree with? Shocking revelation.

Hey, I bet progressives do not ever use misogynist language to demean women they disagree with.

[blue-heron]

I think the progressives spread their ire across the board, regardless of gender, the right engages in a palpable vitriol towards women that exceeds all rationality and scale. I am guessing either mommy issues or deep seated problems accepting their true sexual orientation. But it's just a guess, I'm no psychologist, I just play one on the internet.

[Gandydancer]

That's just a baseless slur, not a "guess".

Hey, I can "guess" too. I guess you're a tranny who has been hiding in your mom's basement since you flunked out of middle school.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Barrett is one of the few women they appear to like,

They like Gail Heriot, too . . . mostly because of her disingenuous switch from Republican to independent registration status, which enabled the Bush (Bush the lesser) administration to game the system with respect to the Commission on Civil Rights and stack that commission with bigoted right-wingers.

[Gandydancer]

you ay your link: "I believe that the upshot of the recent wedding cake ruling will be that either of these establishments [RESTAURANTS] will now be able to deny me service if they merely state that their racism is based on sincerely held religious beliefs."

No, THIS decision is about wedding website design, not wedding cakes, and makes no mention of the plaintiff's beliefs being religious whatsoever. And while #I# would LIKE a SCOTUS majority to better recognize the expressive content of decisions to decline to provide services, in fact Gorsucks (not a typo) writes,

The dissent [AND YOU] even suggests that our decision today is akin to endorsing a “separate
but equal” regime that would allow law firms to refuse women admission into partnership, RESTAURANTS TO DENY SERVICE to Black Americans, or businesses seeking employees to post something like a “White Applicants Only” sign. Pure fiction all.
.
Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment. But those cases are not this case. Doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Smith seeks to engage in expressive activity. And the Tenth Circuit has recognized her services involve “pure speech.”

you here: "I’m scared to look."

I guess that's why you didn't look, at least at the actual opinion. Is the fact that your understanding of this case is so wrong because you read only the "pure fiction" dissent?

[blue-heron]

I actually did look, and happen to think that Sotomayor's take on the practical application of this first law legalizing discrimination and refusal to provide service based on sincerely held religious beliefs is more prescient than Gorsuch's. This kicks the door in and there will be all sorts of people now engaging in various calisthenics justifying their bigotry as "free expression." But I have been reading Reason long enough to know that most of you are perfectly down with that.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

How is this any different than Facebook or YouTube refusing expressive content to which they don't like?

[David Nieporent]

Sotomayor’s take on the practical application of this first law legalizing discrimination and refusal to provide service based on sincerely held religious beliefs

The question presented to the Supreme Court had nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs, sincerely held or otherwise. It was a speech case.

[blue-heron]

bull, we had a christian web designer who hypothetically would not create an ad for a same sex couple that was not in keeping with her moral and theological precepts.

[zztop8970]

Bull yourself. Read the case and the decision. It was decided based on the 1A's free speech clause, not free exercise clause. The ruling would apply equally to a web designer that does not want to create sites for political messages thye disagree with, having nothing to do with religion,

[SMP0328]

The Court's ruling is based on free speech, not free exercise, so it would apply the same to an atheist refusing to provide the same type of service.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It was both argued, and (wrongly) decided as a Free Speech issue. There is no religious requirement to the new standard whatsoever.

tl;dr David is right and you are not.

[Gandydancer]

LOL! Not even the local claque of Wokeists are as willing to be as obviously dumb as you are demonstrating yourself to be.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Probably not a good idea to spam your personal blog.

[blue-heron]

You might be right about that. Have a pretty good firewall but point well taken.

[Gandydancer]

I thought strongly that blue-clueless ought to have said something more substantial here, but there’s otherwise nothing wrong with pointing to a more comprehensive statement elsewhere. It’s the content there that’s self-discrediting, but that wouldn’t be a problem for everyone. What would be the point of blogging and then avoiding drawing attention to it?

It's only spam if it's not on point. Gormlessly on point is not the same thing.

[blue-heron]

I must have misunderstood Bravo. I thought he was asking why I would share my personal blog with the type of human beings who typically inhabit these pages and I thought he had a point. I stand with everything I wrote.

[Gandydancer]

Actually, you've fallen and can't (it seems) get up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I was thinking about Andrew Jackson the other day, talking to Terry. Although he was not a perfect man (native genocide, etc.), he was a man of his time that I admired. "

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

[blue-heron]

People are products of their times and few if any are perfect. Churchill engaged in killing people seeking independence in Cuba and slaughtered Indians in the Swat Valley. The list of American presidents who considered native americans as less than human is long and includes Lincoln. Grant issued an order in 1862 expelling all jewish people from Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. Joshua slaughtered Canaanites like ants at a picnic table when he got his message from god. One must be careful and use perspective when judging people of the past. I think Jackson was a great president and did a lot for democracy, warts and all.

[Gandydancer]

"Churchill engaged in killing people seeking independence in Cuba..."

To be clear, I wouldn't hold it against Churchill if he'd fought with the Spanish in 1895, or if he'd fired back when under attack by revolutionaries, and my view of him is anyway far from hagiographic, but this "engaged in killing people seeking independence" bit is not factual, so far as I can tell. He was a reporter at the time.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/cuba-1895/

[blue-heron]

I've seen you dish it out pretty hard here Ed. Feeling fragile all of a sudden?

[Cheerio]

This case has been widely misreported in the media. It literally has nothing to do with any particular identity group. It says that NOBODY, on any side of any issue, can be forced to create speech/expressive content they disagree with. And thus, it doesn't touch discrimination laws for any non-speech situations.

Notably, the same justice who authored this ruling also authored Bostock -- which *extended* workplace nondisrcimination protections to gay and transgender people.

Both cases are consistent with a libertarian commitment to true tolerance and pluralism, rejecting the bigotry of the right as well as the left.

[blue-heron]

so it begins...

[Cheerio]

The ruling also equally protects pro-LGBT creatives who may not wish to create expressive content for traditional religious groups. Would you prefer that it only go one way?

[blue-heron]

I don't see them whining to the Supreme Court and manufacturing a fake case out of thin air, with no actual claimants asking for a design and a supposedly aggrieved party with a history of being involved in religious legal kerfuffles who doesn't even do that sort of work yet.

[Gandydancer]

Going unacknowledged by you is the history of pro-Woke "fake" cases, as you define that term. Is this ignorance or partisanship?

[blue-heron]

count one...two...three...whataboutism raises its ugly head...

[Gandydancer]

“Whataboutism” is like “racist”, it means nothing anymore after being so overused to evade providing any any actual response to the observation that displays of determined hypocrisy are just that.

[Cheerio]

What counts as "status/group identity" discrimination - versus discrimination based on something else - is an interesting area.

The left argues that, since only gay couples would ever need a website for a gay wedding, it's de facto discrimination against their status. But in Fulton, they were on the other side: arguing that they weren't discriminating against Catholics per se, but just those with a traditional view of marriage - even though being (adherent) Catholic requires such.

Seems like we need a values-neutral framework for determining when discrimination is based on status (e.g. Catholic, LGBT, etc.) vs something integral to said status...

[Magister]

Plenty of non-religious people hate gay marriage. Pope Francis called for civil union laws for gay couples before Fulton was argued; Catholics who want to distinguish between actual gay marriage and civil unions are bigots who deserved to lose that case. Nobody was asking them to perform gay marriages. Observant Catholics can support gay couples in a civil union; it's not intrinsic to Catholicism to reject gay couples. But it is pretty much the case that only gays will seek services related to their gay marriage.

[Cheerio]

As a moderate conservative, I was glad to see Congress pass the bipartisan "Respect for Marriage Act" last fall. Notably, that law explicitly states that good people hold both traditional and progressive views about the nature of marriage. It was a terrific victory for true (i.e., mutual/reciprocal) pluralism and tolerance.

Neither view needs to be a problem unless it's being imposed on others. Live and let live!

Bigotry is when *either* side starts to say the other shouldn't exist, or should be treated as other/less-than.

[Magister]

You're the equal of bigots who might believe that whites and blacks should respect and tolerate each other but not go to the same schools or eat in the same restaurants. Just with gays. I'm not going to respect your bigotry.

[Cheerio]

Nothing of the kind — people with differing values or belief systems can and should coexist and fully respect each other’s humanity and value. Which means *nobody* imposing their values on another.

That bipartisan act of Congress I mentioned (which explicitly endorsed such pluralism) had the support of several traditionalists *and* both of the current LGBT members of the Senate. It was a great start on the road to truly mutual and reciprocal inclusiveness.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like you would have been happier in the "separate but equal" days. That you were born a half-century too late indicates God must not like you much.

[Cheerio]

Sure, because everyone who supported that bipartisan bill (containing statements about mutual tolerance and pluralism) were really just about "separate but equal" -- good grief.

[Gandydancer]

I'm an atheist. And I would write "freedom of religion" out of the Constitution if I could, there being no good reason to privilege "religious" over other beliefs. But I don't like Lefty's tendency to try to win by redefining words. "Civil union" is what the State authorizes and the way to go was to substitute that term everywhere for "marriage".

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

"I would write “freedom of religion” out of the Constitution"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Are you OK with an established state religion? The free exercise clause has done a pretty job IMO in keeping the country free of violent religious warfare.

[blue-heron]

Except for the man who killed abortion doctor George Tiller of course, or Eric Rudolph or a host of other good christians who like to torch abortion clinics and black churches.

[Gandydancer]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but you're probably just to dumb to take in that no one imagines that "freedom of religion" protects us against religiously motivated murders. Does "9/11" ring a bell?

[blue-heron]

Two, too and to. Phonetically identical but they actually have entirely different meanings. Obviously English is your second language. Don't worry, you will understand the distinction in time.

[Toranth]

You, of all people, should not be criticizing typos in comments here.

[Gandydancer]

“Obviously English is your second language.”

Yeah, right.

Exactly as right as everything else you vomit up with no attention to maintaining your own credibility.

[Gandydancer]

There are other bases for preventing the return of establishments of religion than the "freedom of religion" provision you quote, though their efficacy is very much in doubt. The Church of the Magic Negro sucks up all sorts of public funding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts has a state church until 1855 -- the First Amendment was intended to ensure that the Federal Government wouldn't impose one state's official religion on the other 12.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Plenty of non-religious people hate gay marriage.

It is important to recall that not all religious people are bigots, and that some non-religious people are bigots.

But the overlap of religion and bigotry is important and unmistakable in modern America, and that point seems to fuel the accelerating diminution of organized religion in modern American life.

For younger and educated Americans, religion is mostly associated with gay-bashing; misogyny; hatred of immigrants; racism; suppression of science to flatter dogma; virus-flouting, antisocial conduct; America's can't-keep-up southern and rural stretches; nonsense-teaching schools and belligerent ignorance; and endless efforts to arrange special snowflake treatment for old-timey bigots.

Is it difficult to predict how that is going to turn out?

[blue-heron]

Spot on article at Axios. Supreme Court falls to earth.

https://www.axios.com/2023/07/02/supreme-court-rulings-justices

"The justices tried very hard, for a very long time, to cultivate a perception that they existed on an elevated, erudite plane far above the petty concerns that occupy elected politicians.

They said the court's work was wholly separate from considerations like public opinion. Even when they had to take up a case with political implications, they approached it only as a question of legal scholarship, not sullied by ideology or policy preferences.
That image is all but dead.

When history looks back on the term that just ended, what stands out the most may not be any particular ruling, but rather its place in the trend — long-simmering, but quickly accelerating — toward seeing the court for what it is: the single most powerful weapon in U.S. politics.

Driving the news: At every turn, the court looks more like run-of-the-mill, outcomes-driven, raw-power politics."

[Toranth]

Welcome to 1857, Axios and heron!
Or, 1937, if you're unwilling to consider the more blatant but less 'modern' cases.

[Gandydancer]

"...its place in the trend... toward seeing the court for what it is..."

This is bad?

"Wealthy GOP donors with interests before the court paid for luxury vacations for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who didn't disclose those gifts,"

Didn't happen, but a campaign of lies like this go a long way towards explaining any drop in poll numbers.