6 ms·

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid

by 303uru 3y ago

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bequanna 3y ago
Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.
- flangola7 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - unbalancedevh 3y ago
    That wasn't "bothsidesing" the issue. Whatever your current political opinion, the potential is still there for abuse by either party, and there's room for improvement in the process. The point still stands.
  - cbozeman 3y ago
    Expand.
  - drekipus 3y ago
    Not to your definition of morals. Surely you can see that, right?
    - FractalHQ 3y ago
      If your morals are immoral, sure.
      - swat535 3y ago
        What's your definition of immoral? and by whose standard? Outside of a religious context, morality can be very much subjective.
        drekipus 3y ago
        > Outside of a religious context Or, outside of your religious context, more precisely. One religion could think it's moral to treat non-believers like cattle, or kill them, and other religions think it's immoral. Morality is the most subjective "objective morality" there is
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Morality is not subjective. There are definitions of that are more correct than others. Otherwise laws and prosocial behavior would be impossible to define.
      - drekipus 3y ago
        It is subjective. They are "more correct" from your historical context. Assuming you're in a western nation, this means a Christian context. Other nations and religions see it as immoral to eat pig or be homosexual. You might say they are "less correct" definitions, but that is from the Christian ancestry of which the western world was built from. Counties that don't come from Christian roots, don't have the same moral definitions.
  - clove 3y ago
    Is this a common sentiment? I don't live in the US. Which side is seen as the moral side and why?
- __derek__ 3y ago
  > To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels. That was the de facto situation until 2013 (until 2017 for the Supreme Court).[1] The Republican SCOTUS majority became entrenched when Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland in early 2016, though. That wasn't luck. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Cloture_on_nominations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Cloture_o...
  - leereeves 3y ago
    No, it wasn't luck, it was a consequence of the 2014 election, in which the Republicans won net 9 Senate seats.
- ben0x539 3y ago
  > The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity What would the Democrats be doing if they had a supreme court majority? I don't really follow US politics that closely but I got the impression that the Democrats were mostly about not rocking the boat too much?
- hn_version_0023 3y ago
  I'm sorry, did you just compare Mitch McConnell block of Supreme Court appointments through Obama's terms to... luck? That's about as disingenuous as it comes.
leereeves 3y ago
> Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid. Where did you get the idea that she's never deployed a website? I've never heard anyone say that. (And at the very least, she has her own site, https://303creative.com/ https://303creative.com/ )
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  You should read this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-fake-case-make-easier-discriminate-gay-people https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-... > Puzzlingly, before she actually filed the first suit in 2016, Smith had apparently never designed a wedding website. Even weirder: She had never apparently been asked to provide services to a same-sex couple up to that point either. And the customer who "requested" the site was fake, too: > But after The New Republic reached out to Stewart directly—his contact information was readily accessible in court documents—the story fell apart: He said he had never submitted the form; he said TNR’s call was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hiatus 3y ago
    That whole case seems like a mess. > It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-supreme-court-case-wedding-site https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-sup...
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Of course it was removed from her business's profile. Under Colorado law she wasn't allowed to offer to create any wedding sites unless she was willing to create LGBT wedding sites. She wasn't, so she removed references to wedding sites. Why do you find that strange?

by 303uru 3y ago

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bequanna 3y ago

Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

flangola7 3y ago
[flagged]
- unbalancedevh 3y ago
  That wasn't "bothsidesing" the issue. Whatever your current political opinion, the potential is still there for abuse by either party, and there's room for improvement in the process. The point still stands.
- cbozeman 3y ago
  Expand.
- drekipus 3y ago
  Not to your definition of morals. Surely you can see that, right?
  - FractalHQ 3y ago
    If your morals are immoral, sure.
    - swat535 3y ago
      What's your definition of immoral? and by whose standard? Outside of a religious context, morality can be very much subjective.
      - drekipus 3y ago
        > Outside of a religious context Or, outside of your religious context, more precisely. One religion could think it's moral to treat non-believers like cattle, or kill them, and other religions think it's immoral. Morality is the most subjective "objective morality" there is
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Morality is not subjective. There are definitions of that are more correct than others. Otherwise laws and prosocial behavior would be impossible to define.
    - drekipus 3y ago
      It is subjective. They are "more correct" from your historical context. Assuming you're in a western nation, this means a Christian context. Other nations and religions see it as immoral to eat pig or be homosexual. You might say they are "less correct" definitions, but that is from the Christian ancestry of which the western world was built from. Counties that don't come from Christian roots, don't have the same moral definitions.
- clove 3y ago
  Is this a common sentiment? I don't live in the US. Which side is seen as the moral side and why?
__derek__ 3y ago
> To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels. That was the de facto situation until 2013 (until 2017 for the Supreme Court).[1] The Republican SCOTUS majority became entrenched when Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland in early 2016, though. That wasn't luck. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Cloture_on_nominations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Cloture_o...
- leereeves 3y ago
  No, it wasn't luck, it was a consequence of the 2014 election, in which the Republicans won net 9 Senate seats.
ben0x539 3y ago
> The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity What would the Democrats be doing if they had a supreme court majority? I don't really follow US politics that closely but I got the impression that the Democrats were mostly about not rocking the boat too much?
hn_version_0023 3y ago
I'm sorry, did you just compare Mitch McConnell block of Supreme Court appointments through Obama's terms to... luck? That's about as disingenuous as it comes.

leereeves 3y ago

> Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid. Where did you get the idea that she's never deployed a website? I've never heard anyone say that. (And at the very least, she has her own site, https://303creative.com/ https://303creative.com/ )

FireBeyond 3y ago
You should read this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-fake-case-make-easier-discriminate-gay-people https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-... > Puzzlingly, before she actually filed the first suit in 2016, Smith had apparently never designed a wedding website. Even weirder: She had never apparently been asked to provide services to a same-sex couple up to that point either. And the customer who "requested" the site was fake, too: > But after The New Republic reached out to Stewart directly—his contact information was readily accessible in court documents—the story fell apart: He said he had never submitted the form; he said TNR’s call was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hiatus 3y ago
  That whole case seems like a mess. > It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-supreme-court-case-wedding-site https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-sup...
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Of course it was removed from her business's profile. Under Colorado law she wasn't allowed to offer to create any wedding sites unless she was willing to create LGBT wedding sites. She wasn't, so she removed references to wedding sites. Why do you find that strange?