The Supreme Court in its current form is an absolute clown institution. There’s no way the LGBTQ discrimination case should’ve even been heard in the first place. They decided a hypothetical invented story from some bigoted lady’s mind was a good standard to establish that businesses can discriminate against people.

Nuke the six of them into the sun as far as I’m concerned. Or at least Thomas and Alito.

Supreme Court is finally done with judicial activism and forcing liberal priorities through the courts. They’re single-handedly keeping our country from careening off a cliff.

Liberals who don’t like their rulings never argue from A constitutional standpoint, they just don’t like the results and thus call them invalid.

But it’s totally unbiased to find things like abortion rights, contraception rights, and sodomy rights in the constitution, when none of those things are mentioned.

In what world is anything the Court is doing right now the will of the people? That’s factually incorrect by numbers alone.

You’re telling me the 2/3 of Americans without student loan debt support paying the loans of the other third?

I’m not saying that everything the court does is the will of the people, but if the liberal priorities were the will of the people they could pass them through the legislature and they never can.

I suppose you can say that if it’d be wrong to force a Muslim to bake a cake of Muhammad fucking a pig, you have to be consistent with the other religions that there’s things they’re not forced to bake. Still of the three decisions, that one seems the hardest and least constitutionally supported (as equal treatment could be argued for the other side) and maybe could be decided by states.

Most bakeries aren't going to create a cake with something considered obscene on it. There are even obscenity laws that cover this, I believe. And that's okay. I don't think anyone is saying it's not okay for a business to provide a service that includes obscene images or content of some kind if it's against their policy.

What's not okay is refusing service all together on the basis of someone's race, sexual orientation, gender, etc., because you believe it violates your freedom of speech to do so.

In this case today, SCOTUS ruled that the state of Colorado (under their anti-discrimination law that is invalid now) can't tell this woman who she can and can't serve at her business because of the 1st and 14th Amendments (she sued primarily over the 1st, I think, while SCOTUS took the 14th into account too). Anti-discrimination laws across the country are going to be challenged now and overturned on the basis of this SCOTUS ruling. It's not going to matter what state you live in.

If a friend and I went to the same bakery, or spa, or whatever, and I was refused service and he wasn't because the owner knew or suspected I was gay, citing that it would violate their 1st Amendment rights, then that also violates my 1st AND 14th Amendment rights.

It's contradictory. Under the constitution, one person's freedoms and rights can't be considered lawful over another's under that same constitution. It either applies to everyone or it applies to no one. Very simple. If the law says everyone has a right to free speech and freedom of expression, and are to have "equal protection under the law", but then under that same law it's rule that this doesn't actually apply to everyone, the law negates itself. Does it become a case of who claims their rights are violated first and take it to court which is then decided based on the ideological makeup of the court at the time? What sort of system is this?

This one was a bad ruling with regards to the Colorado web designer. It does not have support in side the constitution.

100% Fuck’em!!!!!

what you’re really saying

I actually agree with the affirmative action ruling, and can live with the student loan ruling, but the one in regards to allowing discrimination in the name of freedom of speech is straight up an abusive interpretation of the Constitution that reeks of judicial activism and the Judges trying to push their personal beliefs when the law doesn’t support them. This might be the worst court ruling in the history of the Supreme Court, well besides maybe the Dresscott Decision, but it is in that vein.

The web designer case is actually amongst the three cases the one Americans are the most divided on.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0EV1IZaIAE ... name=small

Makes sense as the other 2 are no brainers.

The fact that the gay website thing wasn't even a real scenario....how was that allowed to even be heard at a court??? They really just wanted any excuse to deny basic rights to people and so they literally made one up.

I'm so glad I don't live in America where people with unironic Ant-Man avatars unironically using terms like "sodomy rights" have their views represented in government.

Lol I made that my avatar before it came out and haven’t had a chance to change it.

I don’t think that sodomy should be illegal or anything but clearly it’s not a constitutional right.

Can't straight people do "sodomy"?

I was using sodomy for shorthand for same sex relations, but technically yes.

This would’ve led to a 233/202 Republican majority, you know right?

Without getting into any specifics, it is beyond remarkable how much they have changed, as if stare decisis doesn't exist.

Overturning abortion and affirmative action are just shockingly disruptive to the system. Considering these were PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT rulings, it - obviously - undermines the credibility of the institution in the eyes of your average person. How could it possibly not?

I understand that past courts and legislatures have made mistakes that have to be corrected in the future, but I don't think very many people see those as items needing correction.

Even if a majority of people disagree with overturning roe (which is based on liking the outcome of legal abortion rather than it’s actual constitutionality), the majority of Americans disapprove of affirmative action. So it’s not like abortion where you can argue that even if it’s not a constitutional right, it’s at least politically popular, cuz it’s not.

I agree, I think affirmative action is what is most unpopular about the “Left” culture right now.

If that is the will of the people then so be it.

Its just so weird how our land was basically founded by people trying to escape religious tyranny (and exploits brown peoples land for their resources of course) and yet now six catholics get to determine the laws for everyone. The same type of people who were ok with priests buttraping children...

Affirmative action is different than abortion in the sense that I don't think the original AA crowd ever thought or wanted it to go on forever. It was both NECESSARY and TEMPORARY.

It stinks, but black people and immigrants were treated in such a way for so long that it put generations upon generations of their ancestors at an obvious disadvantage relative to white people even after laws said there playing ground would equal moving forward. So yes, its is what it is, fixing that problem meant putting some what white people at disadvantage. That obviously cant go on forever. In 2023, has AA been around long enough to have had the desired effect? It definitely, without question, made some progress, but tough to say.



Respectfully, this type of thinking is off base. I don't see most of the justices are dictating laws based on their personal religious preference and I think there Democrats hurt themselves when they try to make this claim.

Politicians from either party win when the messaging puts the power of laws back into the individual hands. Abortion is a women right to chose, period.

Any of the arguments for affirmative action, it seems to me like they can be accomplished by other means like economic status. If a black person's family is poor in part cause their ancestors were slaves, Harvard can just help them based on being poor instead of being black. A wealthy black family who's family were slaves don't need the help any more, while a poor asian person might.

These colleges will probably find workarounds by not admitting they're taking them cause of race, and using words of "culture" making the tangible impact of this small, but just making the symbolic point in favor of striving for a colorblind approach is fine with me, instead of the people who want to remix the Marxist "we must recognize class more in order to solve classism" case into "we must recognize race more in order to solve racism" which much like the class idea, never figures out the step of how it somehow ends classism and racism in the end instead of just making them even more classist and racist. For me personally I hope there's a day when human race can look back at those ancestors who combined skin color, facial features, geography/language into something called called "race" as silly pseudoscience-like believers. In my view taking away its actual meaning on laws is a good start towards that.