Baker wins SCOTUS case
- Thread starter nortatoga
- Start date
If the had ruled against than commercial "no gun zones" would be illegal too.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
7-2 is a "narrow" ruling? That's a 78% to 22% ruling, give or take a point. They must use common core math.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Their decision was a victory, but in the narrowest of senses. In totality, another bullshit cowardly decision by the supreme's.
Robin
Robin
Narrow in the sense that they ruled in favor of baker but didn't deem law unconstitutional.
Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented no surprise there.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
From the ruling (emphasis added):
"...but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.
This sets the stage for an argument that STRICT SCRUTINY was applied (even though they didn't actually use the term) FOR AN INVENTED RIGHT!!!
It opens a strong argument that a future 2A case (a "real" stated constitutional right) should be afforded the same level of scrutiny, in the face of "official expressions of hostility" by the government.
"...but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.
This sets the stage for an argument that STRICT SCRUTINY was applied (even though they didn't actually use the term) FOR AN INVENTED RIGHT!!!
It opens a strong argument that a future 2A case (a "real" stated constitutional right) should be afforded the same level of scrutiny, in the face of "official expressions of hostility" by the government.
Except when they utilize their other mega-trump card, "public safety".
This narrow ruling suggests they were more upset at the appearance of impropriety and bias in how the case was tried, and not on the actual issue of whether a business open to the public can discriminate on religious grounds.
How often have we seen cases denied or ruled against simply because of a technicality?
I think Mosinitis has hit on something here:
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
Ah, okay. The common core math comment was funny, though. I don't have time to read the article - just skimming headlines, so thanks for the tl;dr summary.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
The Baker finally won his long fought case but the liberal progressives still won. The Baker lost his business, his life savings is gone, and his employees lost their jobs. Does not smell like fair justice to me.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
The Marxist and her dim bulb protege, no surprise there.
Robin
Robin
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Nice to know the SCOTUS wastes it's time on this idiotic shit!
Take a bite SCOTUS!
I always wondered what a gay wedding cake was supposed to look like. Remarkable baking skills there.
SEVEN to TWO is a "Narrow" Ruling ?
Well, once again my gal ELENA KAGAN pulls through !
She voted with the Majority in favor of the Christian Bakers.
Despite being GAY herself, she recognizes an Injustice when she sees one.
I daresay she is pretty much a CONSTITUTIONALIST !
And this is not the first time she has proven to be NO RUBBER STAMP for the Statists.
I remember when she was nominated, along with Sotomayor, by Obama. A lot of people said bad things about her.
Among them was that her background did not qualify her for the position. I know a certain current POTUS they say the same thing about.
She must be a tremendous disappointment to the Kenyan.
Well, suck up those tears, Mr Hawaii. The "Wise Latina" Sotomayor and "Drool Bib" Ginsburg will never let you down.
Last edited:
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Screw hit the ground. I wonder when she will be under the ground!
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Not a narrow margin, a narrow scope of the ruling. Read the article carefully. They didn't really lay much out in the way of established case law for future consideration.SEVEN to TWO is a "Narrow" Ruling ?
Well, once again my gal ELENA KAGAN pulls through !
She voted with the Majority in favor of the Christian Bakers.
Despite being GAY herself, she recognizes an Injustice when she sees one.
I daresay she is pretty much a CONSTITUTIONALIST !
And this is not the first time she has proven to be NO RUBBER STAMP for the Statists.
I remember when she was nominated, along with Sotomayor, by Obama. A lot of people said bad things about her.
Among them was that her background did not qualify her for the position. I know a certain current POTUS they say the same thing about.
She must be a tremendous disappointment to the Kenyan.
Well, suck up those tears, Mr Hawaii. The "Wise Latina" Sotomayor and "Drool Bib" Ginsburg will never let you down.
As my friend dwa12479 points out, the LEGAL LANGUAGE was "narrow". This is true.
But the fact that of the 9 justices, the decision passed 7 to 2, is a LANDSLIDE.
CNBC, IMHO, is deliberately attempting to mislead the public, who are NOT Lawyers.
They report the strict truth, which is not really what happened.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
they fought ... and won ... there still alive .. that's the main message .. $$$$ the root of of all evil ... there still here and can come back ...
what happened to them is like you coming to my shop demanding a alignment for your Prius .. i don't do that here ( my shop is for heavy duty trucks) .. fuk i'm suing you then your racist ..
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
you have a business .. you have a scope of how to run it .. what you can and can not do ..
no shirt or shoes no entry ... is the norm .. lets tests it ... no burka ... LOL ..
will Muslim shop offer pulled pork bbq on there menu ?? ..
no shirt or shoes no entry ... is the norm .. lets tests it ... no burka ... LOL ..
will Muslim shop offer pulled pork bbq on there menu ?? ..