Conservative SCOTUS is a ****ing joke but it’s not funny

pfffft, if i need to explain to u why the public trust in these corrupt justices, especially conservative ones have erode due to the recent stories im quite confident u are already dead straight in your stance.

it's no coincidence that the supreme court justices vote along party lines. Conservative stacked the court 6-3 by being big hypocrites, and what a surprise the ruling are 6-3 in the conservative favor, shocker.

 

I didn't ask about public trust in the SC. I asked whether you or not you agreed with their rulings with regards to the Constitution. If not, can you provide an explanation?

 

this is simply empirically false, especially for this court

https://empiricalscotus.com/2023/06/30/another-one-bites-2022/

 

I find it ironic that someone who has been complaining about private businesses not catering to messages that they disagree with is celebrating a ruling that justifies private businesses discriminating.

 

What a huge surprise! TX Judge and her lawyers believe that this Supreme Court ruling will assist their case in legalizing discrimination based on religious expression.

Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight

McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/12/texas-judge-gay-weddings-supreme-court/


Since Waco judge Dianne Hensley received a public warning from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for refusing to perform same-sex marriages in 2019, she’s waged a public battle against the state agency.

She’s long claimed the governmental body violated state law by punishing her for actions taken in accordance with her religious faith. Now, she has submitted a brief arguing that the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of a business owner who refused services to same-sex couples will help her case.

After Hensley was warned by the judicial conduct commission, she filed a lawsuit claiming the investigation and warning “substantially burdened the free exercise of her religion, with no compelling justification.” She seeks damages of $10,000. She has been represented by the First Liberty Institute, a high-profile religious liberty legal group based in Plano. The legal group also has strong ties to suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Her lawsuit alleges that the commission violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Her lawsuit was dismissed by a lower appeals tribunal, but last month, the Texas Supreme Court said it will hear arguments on whether to revive the state judge’s lawsuit.

This new brief, submitted last week by Hensley’s legal team, argues that though the Supreme Court used the First Amendment and not state law in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case, the decision is also applicable in her lawsuit. The First Amendment case decided last month said a Colorado web designer cannot be forced by the state to compromise her beliefs and serve same-sex couples.

“303 Creative was interpreting the First Amendment’s Speech Clause rather than the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Its holding is nonetheless instructive because it rejects the idea of a ‘compelling interest’ in forcing wedding vendors to participate in same-sex and opposite-sex marriage ceremonies on equal terms,” the brief states.

Justin Butterfield, an attorney for Hensley at First Liberty Institute, has maintained throughout the lawsuit that religious liberty is Hensley’s right as a citizen.

“303 Creative affirmed that religious liberty is not a second-class right in America,” Butterfield wrote in an email to The Texas Tribune. “We look forward to vindicating Judge Hensley’s rights in the Texas Supreme Court.”
…

 

Do you disagree with their interpretation? Why or why not? Should people be forced to participate in activities to which they have a religious objection.

 

Yes, of course. Discrimination is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong. Religious objection doesn't give you the right to impose your dislike on other people whom your religion teaches you not to like. If you can't handle it, go find another profession. No one forced anyone to be a judge.

 

Do you believe a judge who morally doesn’t agree with a law should not have to enforce or rule on that law? Let’s say a judge had a relative go to prison for a small amount of drug possession and then decided that mandatory sentencing for drug possession was moatally wrong. should they have to follow mandatory sentencing laws?

 

Is forced denial of your religious freedom morally, ethically, and constitutionally right? I know the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Is there something in there about having the right to have a particular judge perform your wedding ceremony?

No, I think they should be able to recuse themselves from such a case.

 

Seems you are allowing the judges to pick choose what moral objection they may have due to, ahem, "religious objections". Would that judge also be allowed to turn down mixed-race couples? What about people that have been married before?

 

I wasn't the one who made it about religious objections, that was the actual judge in question. Since a judge is a public employee, they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, and so far as I know there is no right of the judge in conflict with that (I am unaware of a religion that doesn't allow interracial marriage, but if one does exist, then the same religious objection would apply). Prior marriage could have a religious objection (I know this is an issue in the Catholic church).

I would suggest just passing those couples a judge doesn't want to perform the marriage ceremony for off to a different judge who is more than happy to do it. There is no shortage of marriage officiants such that it would require a couple to be married by one particular judge who doesn't want to marry them. Like the bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it seems like the whole point is to attack the person, rather than get what the customer wants. Why would someone want the judge that doesn't want them to get married to be the judge who marries them? Wouldn't they be happier with a judge who celebrates their marriage?

 

You must hate yourself at times

 

Or... wouldn't it be better to not allow discrimination of any type. Since the USSC allowed one type of discrimination, the barn door has been opened. And as long as you can claim "religious objection" more types of discrimination will be tested. And that is what is being discussed.

 

No, because the free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. Going to a different judge respects the rights of both parties. Forcing the judge to perform the ceremony denies the free exercise right of the judge in favor of the equal protection right of the couple.

 

You surely see the dead end of this, the immense gray area into which the SCOTUS has waded.
The 9/11 hijackers were definitely expressing free exercise of their religion, to the letter.
So if you deny people you don't like from your public business, turn people down for jobs, or end up killing thousands of people, we now have to litigate every single bit of religious discrimination instead of, like, just not allowing discrimination or allowing one person's religious preferences to negatively impact other citizens.

Do you want a mosque to open next door to you and have a loud blaring call to prayer on the regular? I guess you truly do!

 

Yes, but their right to free exercise doesn't trump the right to life of the people they killed. If the judge was murdering people instead of refusing to participate in their wedding, that would be a much different case. No one is advocating that you are allowed to murder people because of your religion.

Do you see any distinction between turning someone away from your business and murdering thousands of people? These are not difficult things for a court to distinguish.

I wouldn't mind a mosque next door to me. Certainly, I wouldn't say my preference for quiet would trump the Constitutional rights of the congregants to pray. People protest outside of my work. It is irritating, but I wouldn't suggest that they not be allowed to do it. Sometimes people's rights are bothersome to others, but they just have to deal with it.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/1...dent-trumps-not-so-conservative-scotus-picks/

21 hours ago
Progressives Should Be Grateful For President Trump's Not-So-Conservative SCOTUS Picks
by Josh Blackman
7.17.2023 11:10 AM

Recently, Ron DeSantis, the Governor of Florida and GOP presidential candidate, offered a mild criticism of President Trump's three Supreme Court nominees. "I respect the three [Trump] appointees," DeSantis said, "but none of those three are at the same level of Justice Thomas and Justice Alito." DeSantis is not wrong. Consistently, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and to a lesser extent Neil Gorsuch, have voted to the left of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Today, critics assail this Supreme Court as the most conservative bench in modern history. True enough. But it could have been far, far worse for progressives if President Trump had actually nominated Justices in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Look past the string of headline-grabbing conservative victories concerning abortion, affirmative action, the religion clauses, the Second Amendment, and so on. Rather, count up the 5-4 cases on the merits docket that swing left, the rejection of applications on the emergency docket brought by conservative litigants, and the denials of certiorari petitions that could have moved the law to the right. These three-dozen cases are all progressive victories snatched from the jaws of conservative defeat. On balance, progressives should be grateful for President Trump's not-so-conservative SCOTUS picks.
​

more at the link

 

Sorry I missed this earlier.
Weren’t you the one who in a discussion on gang violence regarding things like mandatory saying you disagreed with the idea of judges having more individuality in sentencing. So now you are for judges recusing themselves if they don’t agree with mandatory sentencing?

So you do believe then that judges don’t have a duty to enforce laws they don’t agree with?

 

Preparing for the inevitable...

 

They are currently required to enforce laws they don't agree with, but I would be in favor of them having the option of recusing themselves. Another judge could just as easily impose the mandatory sentence. Why would I care which judge imposes the mandatory sentence? There are certainly situations in which a judge can recuse themselves. I would argue that where the Constitutional rights of the judge would be infringed by forcing them to enforce a law, that would be one situation in which they could recuse themselves.