As Jonathan V. Last put it in his Bulwark column, “The hardest challenges aren’t right-versus-wrong. No, the tough stuff comes when you have two goods in tension with one another.” The Supreme Court may have thrown “normal America” a few bones this term, proving that John Roberts knew the court’s, and his, reputation was down there in Elizabeth Holmes territory. But they waited to the end to again show their true colors. The colors we saw last year when they released the Dobbs decision.
Apparently "free speech" according to this court now means that bigots everywhere are free to mistreat anyone, as long as they claim a religious motive - and as long as that so-called religion matches what the billionaire benefactors of the injustices on the court happen to want. It literally turns my stomach.
I would like to remind Joe Biden that the last time we were in a civil war and the court--in this case, Roger Taney--made a ruling designed to help the enemy, Abraham Lincoln told him to go pound sand.
I'd say its about time for that phrase to be repeated - with firmness! Also time to stop trying to be the nice guy & get along. When only one side does that - they get screwed.
Limpness of the tool implied will make it impossible to achieve firmness required in the act thereof ... as in pound sand ... not withstanding the implication of the origins or location or implausibility of such a tool being in proximity to balls of brass, least of all spheres of lesser organic matter. The holder of such tool and spheres is deferred to a lower court. KY Inc.
I hold out little hope for rational majority rulings from this court in the foreseeable future. My only hope is that cases that threaten our rights and undermine democracy further will be slow-walked by all the fair-minded judges in the lower courts, giving Nature a chance to have a swing at some of those Six. The wingers will squawk and will need to be reminded that the delay-delay-delay method was taught by their lord and master, DJT. I see no other options.
Why on earth would the government have the need to regulate contraception and be involved in a person's most intimate behavior? These justices are batsh*t crazy. They may follow a certain religious practice, but they are NOT Christians. Jesus preached care for others, not what these radicals on the court are doing. Get rid of the filibuster and expand the Court!
Though I've been enjoying your posts I hadn't yet subscribed because I frankly couldn't afford to. But I just did because the standing issue in the website case scares me so much I had to comment. The New Republic article cited below raises the fascinating question of whether the really weak response (in the lower courts) to challenges to standing was based on a deliberate falsehood by plaintiffs. The supremes don't even address it. But even if there were some "Stewart and Mike" out there initiating a question about a not yet existing site, how is this a case or controversy? The implications for what might happen in the mifepristone case are scary in the extreme.
That is quite apart from the religious attack on anti-discrimination laws. Can a website now refuse to work for Jewish weddings? Can an evangelical-run business now state that "Blacks need not apply" (forget about Irish!). What will happen when someone brings the issue of discrimination against racial minorities up, particularly prospectively--challenges by people who simply WANT to open businesses that will discriminate, but are afraid to?
What would be REALLY interesting is the result when a doctor, faced with a breaking an anti-abortion or anti-trans treatment law, claims that his/her religion prevents her from complying with that law--particularly laws against even advising women or families about their options (to get it into the "speech" category) . Can s/he now bring a PROSPECTIVE suit about this (having not actually risked anything by refusing to comply?)
Here's the bit about the false pleading, which may or may not be true but if true is really, really scary:
That "case" should never have made it through the Fed District Court, let alone all the way to the Supreme Court. If the current Court wasn't so laden with corruption, that case would have been thrown out with great force.
Same is true of the mifepristone case. 5th Circuit punted when considering the injunction. Not sure what they will do on further consideration, but it IS the 5th Circuit--and now they have the supremes saying that "wishing" there was an injury is enough. And so what if that case isn't about speech: the genie on standing is out of the bottle and poised to make a gawdawful mess.
IF the Dems take the House and keep the Senate in 2024, there is always the chance that we can codify into federal law the right to an abortion, the right to proper and correct medical treatment for pregnant women, the caring treatment for transgender people, etc. May have to rework or eliminate the filibuster, but that's life..... Do a Franken-Ornstein bit on the Senate - rework the filibuster so that the minority party calling the filibuster has to maintain a debate on the Senate floor, with no other business brought into the debate (no, Ted, you CAN'T read "Green Eggs and Ham" into the Federal Record), and that minority party must maintain at least 41 senators on the floor at all times or the majority leader can call a snap vote on cloture. Make them work for their damn filibuster......would love to see those 80+year old dragons try to stay awake that long.....
I think it’s time for the Satanic Temple to start making websites for goods/services and refuse to sell to any Evangelical Christians. The “Scummy Six” need a serious kick in the touché.
It is the Satanic Temple--don't confuse the bigots. But I totally agree. I also wish they'd do more than open after school clubs in schools which allow Christian after school clubs. Open schools that teach what the Floriduh's and others' laws prohibit--have parents apply for school vouchers (that's the "state funded" bit of the anti DEI prohibitions,) challenge any crackdowns before and after opening. I'd contribute in my own small way to a go-fund me to get this started--I already support the organization in general.
I semi followed this case ( really, my full sanity is at stake) and did not know there WASN'T a fucking case but a"what if" make believe story for christo fascists.
I Judy Clay wish to announce the development of my chicken/bakery store.
I will not serve any Christian no matter the denomination.
Oh and staying in front of those six fucking lunatics, I will never hire a Christian, either.
My rights have been infringed. As an atheist, my non religious beliefs are in step with the 1A
Ya know the one that starts, " The state will make no law respecting the establishment of any religion...."
It's only ok for the government to forgive loans to bankers, businesses and congresspeople, just not to poor people who might actually need the help. One more case where the plaintiffs lacked standing but these injustices couldn't care less.
Yup I agree. Funny how the Rs trickle down stuff works in all kind of ways. Economy, voting, SC decisions - I guess we "little people" (as in not rich) just wait for that trickle to get to us.
Recently the RAND Corporation estimated that 'trickle up' amounted to $50 TRILLION in wealth transferred from the lower and middle classes to the top 1% over the past 40 years......
Trump's legacy: will it be the undoing of the US's rule of law or more, specifically, the redoing of the country's judiciary, and the Supreme Court, in particular? How would you rate his “triumvirate” of advisers: the White House counsel Don McGahn; Leonard Leo, maestro of the Federalist Society; and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who kept President Obama’s third and last court pick, Merrick Garland, from even getting a confirmation hearing in 2016? What you are now witnessing from the Supreme Court is the legacy of that con, crook, ignoramus and pathological liar; the former president that you love to hate.
this might sound cold, but I've decided for the sake of my own sanity to try as hard as I can NOT get completely bent out of shape after any one of these horrifying decisions. it's a rogue court, period. they will come out with rogue decisions.
once in a while, there will be some decisions of which we approve. but for the most part, this rogue court has determined to implement these hateful ideas whenever and wherever they can. yes, it's hateful. yes, these Federalist Society appointments are a disgrace. yes, I'm very angry, which is why I'm trying so hard to be a little stoic.
These recent horrible rulings are what “White Privilege” looks like. KJB’s statement of “Let them eat cake obliviousness” is right on the money. And being writ large, over and over again. That the honorable Oreo Thomas (how can he even walk with that huge chip on his shoulder) goes along with these ignorant (in terms of genuinely diverse life experiences) tools of the right wing-nuts just further degrades his individual legacy. With lifetime appointments, I hate to say it, but what this court needs are a few good funerals.
According to those who knew him "back in the day" he was a "black militant" who subscribed to the Black Panthers as an undergraduate. He decided his Yale Law degree was "worthless" because everyone must think it was "affirmative action" (i.e., he didn't deserve it) when he didn't get hired at top law firms after graduation. It's always been me me me with that pig.
I have to add - its obvious why the man whose name & information was used (stolen?) never got any phone call - makes me think the plaintiff(website?person) was well aware of what a fraud this whole case is! Seems to me fraud would be illegal! And the man whose identity essentially was used/stolen might be able to do something about that.
I'm really not sure why the state didn't bring it up at the top level. I'm hoping someone knows. There has been recent criticism of the court by historians saying the court simply gets its history wrong. Again, I have no idea whether the contestants briefed the issue or whether the court is just making up its history sua sponte.
Okay, so how the fuck do we get out from under this steamroller destroying our rights. We have 6 right wing religious bigots controlling the Supreme Court. They have lifetime appointments and they are all relatively young except for Oreo. Even with the blatant corruption they are flaunting nothing is or will happen to them. We can vote to our heart’s content for democrats but nothing will change with the Supreme’s. Oh jeez where is Diana Ross?? I just found out she’s performing at McMenamins Edgefield just outside Portland this summer. Sorry went off on a tangent. Biden said today he is against packing the court. But how else can we put a stop to this out of control group taking rights away from anyone that isn’t a white christian male, handmaiden or oligarch. Ideas are welcome.
Term limits and a minding ethics rule. Both are popular positions - as opposed to expanding the court, which isn't (because people have been propagandized into believing the number nine was given by god).
But since there are 13 US District Courts of Appeal, expanding the court to have one SCOTUS justice for each District Court is in keeping with tradition over most of the history of the Court, and the Judiciary Act should be written with that in mind - "the number of US Supreme Court justices shall equal the number of US District Courts of Appeal"...... That would prevent subsequent 'repacking' the Court, unless they create more District Courts.
I love term limits and they should be put in place asap. But they will never mind their ethics so don’t bother. For those who have a Holy Alliance to the number 9 an exorcism may be in order. It’s been a tough couple of days.
A friend asked me about standing of the plaintiff/appellants in the Student Loan case. The court found the State of Missouri had standing. I got curious as to how, and read the opinion.
In the student loan cases the court decided that Missouri had standing because a state owned non-profit corporation could be affected by the loan forgiveness. Not HAD BEEN affected. Might be. What it would lose were fees paid by the Federal government for administering federal loans. It naturally loses those fees when the loan is paid off. So the non-profit, through administration, got fees for loans it didn’t actually make, and thus made money. It would lose that money if someone, like the government or an inheritance from great aunt Sally paid off the loan.
Basically, the claim is for lost profits by a non-profit—it wouldn’t have to spend any money to administer loans that no longer existed. So why should it get the fees?
But wait—it isn’t the non-profit who is suing, which of course as a corporation it could. Picky Picky said the court. The state itself will lose money if its non-profit doesn’t get the fees it no longer has the requirement to do any work to earn.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative. Let’s hope Missouri doesn’t try to sue Great Aunt Sally’s estate. It loses fees when her estate pays off the loan, too.
There is apparently some state right to earnings for work it doesn’t have to do.
The GOP forces keep asking the supremes for basically advisory opinions. The very FIRST rejection of advisory opinions was the court squelching George Washington’s request for one. So much for an originalist court.
Watch out for the Mifepristone case. Standing is at its very heart.
And the PRIVATE COMPANY that Missouri claimed was "acting like" a state agency (but it wasn't) declared it wanted NOTHING TO DO with the suit, because the company WOULD MAKE MONEY with student loan forgivenness (which meant "no harm" and thus no "standing" for the lawsuit.
funny, you couldn't tell that from the opinion. For dishonest opinions this is right up there with the made-up facts the court used on the Bremerton Coach case.
They had this Michael Fitzpatrick guy on MSNBC earlier and he said, with a straight face, the Roberts court has overturned few cases than any court going back to the Warren court. While that may be true in number, it doesn't account for the ramifications or sheer audaciousness in the rulings.
Also, it's not fair to compare these to Miss Holmes. She's in prison. A more apt comparison would be Musk or Zuck.
I think the comparison was more about the state of those people's reputations, as opposed to where they reside. I think that Musk and Zuck actually have FANS, god help us.
David, I got the comparison. However, a more apt one would have been the ones I put forth. Also, to only slightly paraphrase my favorite doctor, "(God) has very little to do with this Mr. Scott."
what strikes me as strange is that the same court (a court with virtually the same ideological bias) rejected that wedding cake case, thereby affirming the Colorado court's finding against the schmuck baker. and in that case, the Colorado court had genuine STANDING. so how can they possibly justify even TAKING this case?
Apparently "free speech" according to this court now means that bigots everywhere are free to mistreat anyone, as long as they claim a religious motive - and as long as that so-called religion matches what the billionaire benefactors of the injustices on the court happen to want. It literally turns my stomach.
I would like to remind Joe Biden that the last time we were in a civil war and the court--in this case, Roger Taney--made a ruling designed to help the enemy, Abraham Lincoln told him to go pound sand.
I'd say its about time for that phrase to be repeated - with firmness! Also time to stop trying to be the nice guy & get along. When only one side does that - they get screwed.
Dems need to get that message, or is it to late…
Almost too late. But we need to vote regarding the court in 2024 the way the wingers do.
Limpness of the tool implied will make it impossible to achieve firmness required in the act thereof ... as in pound sand ... not withstanding the implication of the origins or location or implausibility of such a tool being in proximity to balls of brass, least of all spheres of lesser organic matter. The holder of such tool and spheres is deferred to a lower court. KY Inc.
To be fair, it's against everything Democrats say to acknowledge that we are in a war. Which does relate to your point, of course!
Ah. If there is no sand, no pound is required. I sit in adjournment of further derision. Fo now. 😊
I hold out little hope for rational majority rulings from this court in the foreseeable future. My only hope is that cases that threaten our rights and undermine democracy further will be slow-walked by all the fair-minded judges in the lower courts, giving Nature a chance to have a swing at some of those Six. The wingers will squawk and will need to be reminded that the delay-delay-delay method was taught by their lord and master, DJT. I see no other options.
Why on earth would the government have the need to regulate contraception and be involved in a person's most intimate behavior? These justices are batsh*t crazy. They may follow a certain religious practice, but they are NOT Christians. Jesus preached care for others, not what these radicals on the court are doing. Get rid of the filibuster and expand the Court!
Though I've been enjoying your posts I hadn't yet subscribed because I frankly couldn't afford to. But I just did because the standing issue in the website case scares me so much I had to comment. The New Republic article cited below raises the fascinating question of whether the really weak response (in the lower courts) to challenges to standing was based on a deliberate falsehood by plaintiffs. The supremes don't even address it. But even if there were some "Stewart and Mike" out there initiating a question about a not yet existing site, how is this a case or controversy? The implications for what might happen in the mifepristone case are scary in the extreme.
That is quite apart from the religious attack on anti-discrimination laws. Can a website now refuse to work for Jewish weddings? Can an evangelical-run business now state that "Blacks need not apply" (forget about Irish!). What will happen when someone brings the issue of discrimination against racial minorities up, particularly prospectively--challenges by people who simply WANT to open businesses that will discriminate, but are afraid to?
What would be REALLY interesting is the result when a doctor, faced with a breaking an anti-abortion or anti-trans treatment law, claims that his/her religion prevents her from complying with that law--particularly laws against even advising women or families about their options (to get it into the "speech" category) . Can s/he now bring a PROSPECTIVE suit about this (having not actually risked anything by refusing to comply?)
Here's the bit about the false pleading, which may or may not be true but if true is really, really scary:
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
Welcome, Susan. You can look forward soon to a lot of reasons to be a TAFM subscriber, that will give you "your money's worth."
Heh, I should have added, given the make up of the court, "Jewish and Catholic weddings."
That "case" should never have made it through the Fed District Court, let alone all the way to the Supreme Court. If the current Court wasn't so laden with corruption, that case would have been thrown out with great force.
Same is true of the mifepristone case. 5th Circuit punted when considering the injunction. Not sure what they will do on further consideration, but it IS the 5th Circuit--and now they have the supremes saying that "wishing" there was an injury is enough. And so what if that case isn't about speech: the genie on standing is out of the bottle and poised to make a gawdawful mess.
Well on the way
IF the Dems take the House and keep the Senate in 2024, there is always the chance that we can codify into federal law the right to an abortion, the right to proper and correct medical treatment for pregnant women, the caring treatment for transgender people, etc. May have to rework or eliminate the filibuster, but that's life..... Do a Franken-Ornstein bit on the Senate - rework the filibuster so that the minority party calling the filibuster has to maintain a debate on the Senate floor, with no other business brought into the debate (no, Ted, you CAN'T read "Green Eggs and Ham" into the Federal Record), and that minority party must maintain at least 41 senators on the floor at all times or the majority leader can call a snap vote on cloture. Make them work for their damn filibuster......would love to see those 80+year old dragons try to stay awake that long.....
I think it’s time for the Satanic Temple to start making websites for goods/services and refuse to sell to any Evangelical Christians. The “Scummy Six” need a serious kick in the touché.
It is the Satanic Temple--don't confuse the bigots. But I totally agree. I also wish they'd do more than open after school clubs in schools which allow Christian after school clubs. Open schools that teach what the Floriduh's and others' laws prohibit--have parents apply for school vouchers (that's the "state funded" bit of the anti DEI prohibitions,) challenge any crackdowns before and after opening. I'd contribute in my own small way to a go-fund me to get this started--I already support the organization in general.
Wasn't actually thinking of the Satanic Temple when I wrote this, but you're right.
Yes, satanic Temple. Thanks for the correction.
I semi followed this case ( really, my full sanity is at stake) and did not know there WASN'T a fucking case but a"what if" make believe story for christo fascists.
I Judy Clay wish to announce the development of my chicken/bakery store.
I will not serve any Christian no matter the denomination.
Oh and staying in front of those six fucking lunatics, I will never hire a Christian, either.
My rights have been infringed. As an atheist, my non religious beliefs are in step with the 1A
Ya know the one that starts, " The state will make no law respecting the establishment of any religion...."
AND they did the same kind of "close your eyes & ignore the truth" in the student debt decision:
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/6/30/supreme_court_student_debt_mohela_case?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=6f79a9c1a9-Daily_Digest_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-6f79a9c1a9-192377045
It's only ok for the government to forgive loans to bankers, businesses and congresspeople, just not to poor people who might actually need the help. One more case where the plaintiffs lacked standing but these injustices couldn't care less.
Yup I agree. Funny how the Rs trickle down stuff works in all kind of ways. Economy, voting, SC decisions - I guess we "little people" (as in not rich) just wait for that trickle to get to us.
Nothing trickles down, it all trickles up, to the already rich bastards
Funny how that works, isnt it? You would almost think that was the purpose.
Not even a secret, just twist In the wind til any logic is swept away and the culture warriors redefine everything. Orwell. Where are you?
Recently the RAND Corporation estimated that 'trickle up' amounted to $50 TRILLION in wealth transferred from the lower and middle classes to the top 1% over the past 40 years......
Follow the money if you can fly that high
Trump's legacy: will it be the undoing of the US's rule of law or more, specifically, the redoing of the country's judiciary, and the Supreme Court, in particular? How would you rate his “triumvirate” of advisers: the White House counsel Don McGahn; Leonard Leo, maestro of the Federalist Society; and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who kept President Obama’s third and last court pick, Merrick Garland, from even getting a confirmation hearing in 2016? What you are now witnessing from the Supreme Court is the legacy of that con, crook, ignoramus and pathological liar; the former president that you love to hate.
Other vermin share the blame, but you nailed the worst…
this might sound cold, but I've decided for the sake of my own sanity to try as hard as I can NOT get completely bent out of shape after any one of these horrifying decisions. it's a rogue court, period. they will come out with rogue decisions.
once in a while, there will be some decisions of which we approve. but for the most part, this rogue court has determined to implement these hateful ideas whenever and wherever they can. yes, it's hateful. yes, these Federalist Society appointments are a disgrace. yes, I'm very angry, which is why I'm trying so hard to be a little stoic.
court reform is obviously essential.
Balance it or we die
These recent horrible rulings are what “White Privilege” looks like. KJB’s statement of “Let them eat cake obliviousness” is right on the money. And being writ large, over and over again. That the honorable Oreo Thomas (how can he even walk with that huge chip on his shoulder) goes along with these ignorant (in terms of genuinely diverse life experiences) tools of the right wing-nuts just further degrades his individual legacy. With lifetime appointments, I hate to say it, but what this court needs are a few good funerals.
According to those who knew him "back in the day" he was a "black militant" who subscribed to the Black Panthers as an undergraduate. He decided his Yale Law degree was "worthless" because everyone must think it was "affirmative action" (i.e., he didn't deserve it) when he didn't get hired at top law firms after graduation. It's always been me me me with that pig.
Have you guys seen the doc about “Justice” Thomas. Explains a lot…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuRx1wARUk
Thanks, Kathy, had not seen this, sheds light on MO, sad though, that he and Ginni view Left as pure evil.
Thomas is "balanced" - he has a chip on each shoulder.
I laughed out loud.
Jeebus. It’s going to be a long effing year and a half (almost).
it's gonna be a lot longer than that with these scumbags who have lifetime appointments.
Wondering who backed this up to get it out of the district court and to Supreme, since it clearly has no standing in
any court, and basically is a
hypothetical.
If courts are ruling on hypothetical, well gee, deluge
them and use the SCOTUS
ruling as now precedent.
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
I have to add - its obvious why the man whose name & information was used (stolen?) never got any phone call - makes me think the plaintiff(website?person) was well aware of what a fraud this whole case is! Seems to me fraud would be illegal! And the man whose identity essentially was used/stolen might be able to do something about that.
Certainly appears that there is no research or background investigations when someone brings a case to the SC. Hypothetical? anyone?
I'm really not sure why the state didn't bring it up at the top level. I'm hoping someone knows. There has been recent criticism of the court by historians saying the court simply gets its history wrong. Again, I have no idea whether the contestants briefed the issue or whether the court is just making up its history sua sponte.
Okay, so how the fuck do we get out from under this steamroller destroying our rights. We have 6 right wing religious bigots controlling the Supreme Court. They have lifetime appointments and they are all relatively young except for Oreo. Even with the blatant corruption they are flaunting nothing is or will happen to them. We can vote to our heart’s content for democrats but nothing will change with the Supreme’s. Oh jeez where is Diana Ross?? I just found out she’s performing at McMenamins Edgefield just outside Portland this summer. Sorry went off on a tangent. Biden said today he is against packing the court. But how else can we put a stop to this out of control group taking rights away from anyone that isn’t a white christian male, handmaiden or oligarch. Ideas are welcome.
Term limits and a minding ethics rule. Both are popular positions - as opposed to expanding the court, which isn't (because people have been propagandized into believing the number nine was given by god).
But since there are 13 US District Courts of Appeal, expanding the court to have one SCOTUS justice for each District Court is in keeping with tradition over most of the history of the Court, and the Judiciary Act should be written with that in mind - "the number of US Supreme Court justices shall equal the number of US District Courts of Appeal"...... That would prevent subsequent 'repacking' the Court, unless they create more District Courts.
I love term limits and they should be put in place asap. But they will never mind their ethics so don’t bother. For those who have a Holy Alliance to the number 9 an exorcism may be in order. It’s been a tough couple of days.
Karen💯 how I’m feeling! So fucking mad!! 🤬🤬🤬
Can’t edit on my phone. Tried to delete “feeling powerless” because it’s not really true. Just don’t yet know where to put my anger to work.
If you visit Robert Hubbell's Substack, he poins out things to do. Also Chop Wood, Carry Water substack.
A friend asked me about standing of the plaintiff/appellants in the Student Loan case. The court found the State of Missouri had standing. I got curious as to how, and read the opinion.
In the student loan cases the court decided that Missouri had standing because a state owned non-profit corporation could be affected by the loan forgiveness. Not HAD BEEN affected. Might be. What it would lose were fees paid by the Federal government for administering federal loans. It naturally loses those fees when the loan is paid off. So the non-profit, through administration, got fees for loans it didn’t actually make, and thus made money. It would lose that money if someone, like the government or an inheritance from great aunt Sally paid off the loan.
Basically, the claim is for lost profits by a non-profit—it wouldn’t have to spend any money to administer loans that no longer existed. So why should it get the fees?
But wait—it isn’t the non-profit who is suing, which of course as a corporation it could. Picky Picky said the court. The state itself will lose money if its non-profit doesn’t get the fees it no longer has the requirement to do any work to earn.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative. Let’s hope Missouri doesn’t try to sue Great Aunt Sally’s estate. It loses fees when her estate pays off the loan, too.
There is apparently some state right to earnings for work it doesn’t have to do.
The GOP forces keep asking the supremes for basically advisory opinions. The very FIRST rejection of advisory opinions was the court squelching George Washington’s request for one. So much for an originalist court.
Watch out for the Mifepristone case. Standing is at its very heart.
And the PRIVATE COMPANY that Missouri claimed was "acting like" a state agency (but it wasn't) declared it wanted NOTHING TO DO with the suit, because the company WOULD MAKE MONEY with student loan forgivenness (which meant "no harm" and thus no "standing" for the lawsuit.
funny, you couldn't tell that from the opinion. For dishonest opinions this is right up there with the made-up facts the court used on the Bremerton Coach case.
They had this Michael Fitzpatrick guy on MSNBC earlier and he said, with a straight face, the Roberts court has overturned few cases than any court going back to the Warren court. While that may be true in number, it doesn't account for the ramifications or sheer audaciousness in the rulings.
Also, it's not fair to compare these to Miss Holmes. She's in prison. A more apt comparison would be Musk or Zuck.
I think the comparison was more about the state of those people's reputations, as opposed to where they reside. I think that Musk and Zuck actually have FANS, god help us.
David, I got the comparison. However, a more apt one would have been the ones I put forth. Also, to only slightly paraphrase my favorite doctor, "(God) has very little to do with this Mr. Scott."
what strikes me as strange is that the same court (a court with virtually the same ideological bias) rejected that wedding cake case, thereby affirming the Colorado court's finding against the schmuck baker. and in that case, the Colorado court had genuine STANDING. so how can they possibly justify even TAKING this case?
it feels downright CONSPIRATORIAL.
Tht's because it is.