Hi All. Thanks for the wonderful comments. The trolls have found the open Comments section and have started posting, so I am locking down the comments to paid subscribers. I am very sorry about this situation, but do not want to subject my readers to bad-faith and upsetting comments. I have removed the offending posts that I found. Let me know if I missed any.
If SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in those cases, maybe people can refuse to abide by its fiats and real cases can be brought to the court. If the decisions are not lawful, they don’t apply. The short answer is we need civil disobedience and a lot of it. If SCOTUS persists they bring on more civil disobedience.
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Please advise me if I am mistaken, however the Court decision in 303 Creative is either contradictory to its determination in the Affirmative Action case/decision or the Conservative Justices are simply political tools and no better than the extreme right-wing politicians and wealthy cronies who entertain them. In brief, Justice Roberts contended that there is no place, however well intended, for race to be a determinative factor in the selection of college registrants. There was an implied suggestion that racism, having been addressed for so many years, has been ameliorated [by the success of affirmative action], had a positive effect on society and that the protections of the past are no longer required, making "color-blindness" the current best course in the college acceptance process. In other words, race cannot be a determinative factor in the selection process. Affirmative action is now illegal.
Then what is happening when an individual claims that her right to free speech is threatened if she is forced to do creative work on behalf of a theoretical gay couple, who theoretically come to her to ask for a theoretical cake on which will be theoretical words offensive to her personally and contrary to her beliefs. Forgetting the issues of jurisdiction and standing in this matter, the court has effectively found in favor of what I call "Affirmative Prejudice". Is she not "selecting" a unique population and denying them their equal rights. The court has decided anyone now has right to not transact with anybody of their choosing. What if the baker were anti-semitic or a racist. Would then she be able to turn away Jews and Blacks, then Hispanics, then Asians, boys in sandals and girls with bare midriffs? It then follows she would be legally permitted to conduct her business with greater specificity - "I bake for only MAGA Extreme Right-Wing Republican White Christian Gun Owning Anti-Abortionists. She has been given the right with no standing that was taken away from Harvard and UNC for attempting to bring diversity to their campuses.
I’m also so angry I just keep rereading these decisions in disbelief! Senator Whitehouse is vindicated. IT IS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Courtzilla has arrived! I agree with Gary S. These cases do not have standing, unless the 6 allowing it are standing on their heads! I would continue as if so and let the Court try to stop them. Biden should continue his relief program, just call it something else or change the sums a bit. Over and over. Colleges can create avenues to admit minority students if they choose. Any business that attempts to follow the path of that fantasy biz in Colorado should be sued pro bono immediately, over and over. I believe that there are sharper minds out there than these 6 pretenders. It appears racism is their true religion. And their God is a cruel one. Let’s not vote for that God. Vote for the millions hurt by these decisions of this feckless Courtzilla .
I'm surprised the John Roberts Christian Nationalist majority on the Supreme Court is still bothering to play the part of serious judges. Most of America knows they've made a mockery of the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Their opinions are contorted and their arguments are ridiculous.
Come on, Justice Roberts. You can save so much time. Just have the author write a one or two paragraph opinion containing the bottom line that we all know you've already decided before the case was even presented. Your base and your rich Federalist Society masters will be just as happy either way.
Because the Republican majority producing a long, illogical, unconstitutional, embarrassingly transparent "argument" in service of dragging America back to the dark ages, is as useless as Justice Roberts continuing to chide people for disparaging his court's antediluvian opinions, lest those criticisms "damage" the credibility of the Supreme Court. So feel free to start issuing brief, "CliffsNotes" style opinions and save everyone a lot of time.
By the way, Justice Roberts. No need to worry about your court's credibility being damaged by the criticism of outsiders. You and the fascist five have done that take down all on your own.
Just saying, if I had suggested in my Federal Procedural class in my second year of law school ( in the mid 70’s) that the Supreme Court or indeed any appellate court had jurisdiction to consider a case that had not exhausted it’s judicial appeal rights before appealing to the highest judicial authority of the nation, I would have flunked the class! Here, the complainant has yet to allege a real harm. How many other lawyers find themselves wondering what their legal education was really worth. The fight goes on but geez, I am grateful to be a retired litigator.
Robert, I am angry as hell. SCROTUS* has just given everyone the right to deny me anything they want to because of their religious beliefs. If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry "discrimination" and demand "justice". Well, so do I.
*I have added the "R" into the abbreviation for SCOTUS to designate that it represents the RepubliQan party. I also have a very junior high part of my brain. That part of my brain revels in comparing the 6 (of the 6-3 votes we are being served without salt) to a particular part of the male anatomy where the family jewels reside.
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Posted elsewhere (thanks for the correction on the state-ownedness of the corp, TCinLA). Worth repeating because the decision on standing is even more dishonest than it looks.
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. This turns out not to have been true--the entity, actually private--refused to be involved. But the court found that 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 falsely says the court.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else 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.
Thanks again for a most eloquent summary of the Extreme Court's deceitful explanations, and the ugly results.
Please enjoy your day off, maybe take a few more. Glad to hear you have other activities to give you a break from the craziness, and to recharge your batteries. Health and rest to you, from a grateful reader.
The Supreme court reactionary, radical majority is entitled to no legal respect. The Court has gone where no Supreme Court has gone before: acting as a legislative body and not a Court issuing decisions in real cases or controversies. In acting outside of its jurisdiction under the Constitution, the Court’s legislative pronouncements are not entitled to any legal effect and can be ignored due to absence of es which we can ignore. i standing by the plaintiffs. In the absence of Constitutional jurisdiction the court’s pronouncements are mere opinions of politicians in black robes. As such they have denied legitimacy to their attempts at legislating. Roberts’s and Gorsuch have issued unenforceable nullities. Attorney general Garland should issue an opinion confirming that the legislative pronouncements on student debt relief and imaginary website designers work are not law and can be ignored.
Now that the radical majority has dropped any pretense of normal and fair judicial analysis, one has to wonder what's next? How far will those justices go to turn the U.S. into a place where long-fought-for rights are arbitrarily scrapped? I fear they're just getting started.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should be renamed The Extreme Court. The facts as given here are astounding. Shouldn't the ruling be declared null and void since it was based on a trumped up charge in effect. Unfortunately there is no higher court to appeal too, which shows a weak link in the system. These people have unlimited power which is a very dangerous thing when you have people who are political animals and heavily biased from an ultra conservative perspective. Same with all the luxrative gifts to some of them and sham fees to family members. They did make a couple of fair decisions recently but I think that's because they knew they were becoming severely disrespected. But now it; it's back to business as usual. - a powerful extension of the Republican Party.
IMHO, the Roberts court is illegitimate. Its legitimacy died when Mitch McConnell refused act as prescribed in the Constitution to provide Advice and Consent wrt President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The Court further lost legitimacy when a illegitimate president, elected with the assitance of a foreign enemy, appointed three justices to the court. Accordingly, any and all 6 Republican appointed justices v. 3 Democratic appointed justices rulings are illegitimate.
My hope is that these egregious decisions will drive voters to the polls so eventually future courts will undue these contrived decisions.
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
What happens when Lorie Smith proclaims that her religion prevents her from creating a website for couples like my wife and me, where one partner is Christian (at least, by birth) and the other is Jewish? Or when she declares that she will not design a site for two Jews, because we have been condemned to eternal damnation? Or that she won’t work for a mixed-race couple?
As for the student loan case, it is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats. Many people oppose forgiving student loans for reasons unrelated to racism. Now we have another issue to campaign against the court on, one that will not galvanize the other side so much.
Robert Hubbell’s fine righteous anger is fully justified by the several decisions this week of a renegade Supreme Court. He has used a perfect, if somewhat old-fashioned word--“reactionary”--to describe their behavior, one barely disguised by flimsy pseudo-legal rhetoric. That the SCOTUS term has ended gives the sane and sentient majority the time to absorb just how serious a blow the Court has struck against the liberties of us all--of whatever ethnicity or sexual orientation. My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024. These six “Justices” have declared war on virtually the entire nation. We must, in response, take up arms against the sea of troubles these mendacious rulings have created. This Court is the product of the clever machinations of a deranged minority. We the majority must fight them with every tool at our disposal. To quote Goethe, “There is nothing the rabble fear more than intelligence.” We, the rational and reasonable majority, should not fear the open conflict needed to defeat the forces of darkness.
Very well said, Mr. Hubbell - you expressed what many feel - I’m hoping Justice John Roberts gets wind of your truthful, sincere criticism - we appreciate you!!
Hi All. Thanks for the wonderful comments. The trolls have found the open Comments section and have started posting, so I am locking down the comments to paid subscribers. I am very sorry about this situation, but do not want to subject my readers to bad-faith and upsetting comments. I have removed the offending posts that I found. Let me know if I missed any.
If SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in those cases, maybe people can refuse to abide by its fiats and real cases can be brought to the court. If the decisions are not lawful, they don’t apply. The short answer is we need civil disobedience and a lot of it. If SCOTUS persists they bring on more civil disobedience.
Please advise me if I am mistaken, however the Court decision in 303 Creative is either contradictory to its determination in the Affirmative Action case/decision or the Conservative Justices are simply political tools and no better than the extreme right-wing politicians and wealthy cronies who entertain them. In brief, Justice Roberts contended that there is no place, however well intended, for race to be a determinative factor in the selection of college registrants. There was an implied suggestion that racism, having been addressed for so many years, has been ameliorated [by the success of affirmative action], had a positive effect on society and that the protections of the past are no longer required, making "color-blindness" the current best course in the college acceptance process. In other words, race cannot be a determinative factor in the selection process. Affirmative action is now illegal.
Then what is happening when an individual claims that her right to free speech is threatened if she is forced to do creative work on behalf of a theoretical gay couple, who theoretically come to her to ask for a theoretical cake on which will be theoretical words offensive to her personally and contrary to her beliefs. Forgetting the issues of jurisdiction and standing in this matter, the court has effectively found in favor of what I call "Affirmative Prejudice". Is she not "selecting" a unique population and denying them their equal rights. The court has decided anyone now has right to not transact with anybody of their choosing. What if the baker were anti-semitic or a racist. Would then she be able to turn away Jews and Blacks, then Hispanics, then Asians, boys in sandals and girls with bare midriffs? It then follows she would be legally permitted to conduct her business with greater specificity - "I bake for only MAGA Extreme Right-Wing Republican White Christian Gun Owning Anti-Abortionists. She has been given the right with no standing that was taken away from Harvard and UNC for attempting to bring diversity to their campuses.
I’m also so angry I just keep rereading these decisions in disbelief! Senator Whitehouse is vindicated. IT IS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Courtzilla has arrived! I agree with Gary S. These cases do not have standing, unless the 6 allowing it are standing on their heads! I would continue as if so and let the Court try to stop them. Biden should continue his relief program, just call it something else or change the sums a bit. Over and over. Colleges can create avenues to admit minority students if they choose. Any business that attempts to follow the path of that fantasy biz in Colorado should be sued pro bono immediately, over and over. I believe that there are sharper minds out there than these 6 pretenders. It appears racism is their true religion. And their God is a cruel one. Let’s not vote for that God. Vote for the millions hurt by these decisions of this feckless Courtzilla .
I'm surprised the John Roberts Christian Nationalist majority on the Supreme Court is still bothering to play the part of serious judges. Most of America knows they've made a mockery of the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Their opinions are contorted and their arguments are ridiculous.
Come on, Justice Roberts. You can save so much time. Just have the author write a one or two paragraph opinion containing the bottom line that we all know you've already decided before the case was even presented. Your base and your rich Federalist Society masters will be just as happy either way.
Because the Republican majority producing a long, illogical, unconstitutional, embarrassingly transparent "argument" in service of dragging America back to the dark ages, is as useless as Justice Roberts continuing to chide people for disparaging his court's antediluvian opinions, lest those criticisms "damage" the credibility of the Supreme Court. So feel free to start issuing brief, "CliffsNotes" style opinions and save everyone a lot of time.
By the way, Justice Roberts. No need to worry about your court's credibility being damaged by the criticism of outsiders. You and the fascist five have done that take down all on your own.
Just saying, if I had suggested in my Federal Procedural class in my second year of law school ( in the mid 70’s) that the Supreme Court or indeed any appellate court had jurisdiction to consider a case that had not exhausted it’s judicial appeal rights before appealing to the highest judicial authority of the nation, I would have flunked the class! Here, the complainant has yet to allege a real harm. How many other lawyers find themselves wondering what their legal education was really worth. The fight goes on but geez, I am grateful to be a retired litigator.
Robert, I am angry as hell. SCROTUS* has just given everyone the right to deny me anything they want to because of their religious beliefs. If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry "discrimination" and demand "justice". Well, so do I.
*I have added the "R" into the abbreviation for SCOTUS to designate that it represents the RepubliQan party. I also have a very junior high part of my brain. That part of my brain revels in comparing the 6 (of the 6-3 votes we are being served without salt) to a particular part of the male anatomy where the family jewels reside.
Posted elsewhere (thanks for the correction on the state-ownedness of the corp, TCinLA). Worth repeating because the decision on standing is even more dishonest than it looks.
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. This turns out not to have been true--the entity, actually private--refused to be involved. But the court found that 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 falsely says the court.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else 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.
Thanks again for a most eloquent summary of the Extreme Court's deceitful explanations, and the ugly results.
Please enjoy your day off, maybe take a few more. Glad to hear you have other activities to give you a break from the craziness, and to recharge your batteries. Health and rest to you, from a grateful reader.
The Supreme court reactionary, radical majority is entitled to no legal respect. The Court has gone where no Supreme Court has gone before: acting as a legislative body and not a Court issuing decisions in real cases or controversies. In acting outside of its jurisdiction under the Constitution, the Court’s legislative pronouncements are not entitled to any legal effect and can be ignored due to absence of es which we can ignore. i standing by the plaintiffs. In the absence of Constitutional jurisdiction the court’s pronouncements are mere opinions of politicians in black robes. As such they have denied legitimacy to their attempts at legislating. Roberts’s and Gorsuch have issued unenforceable nullities. Attorney general Garland should issue an opinion confirming that the legislative pronouncements on student debt relief and imaginary website designers work are not law and can be ignored.
Now that the radical majority has dropped any pretense of normal and fair judicial analysis, one has to wonder what's next? How far will those justices go to turn the U.S. into a place where long-fought-for rights are arbitrarily scrapped? I fear they're just getting started.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should be renamed The Extreme Court. The facts as given here are astounding. Shouldn't the ruling be declared null and void since it was based on a trumped up charge in effect. Unfortunately there is no higher court to appeal too, which shows a weak link in the system. These people have unlimited power which is a very dangerous thing when you have people who are political animals and heavily biased from an ultra conservative perspective. Same with all the luxrative gifts to some of them and sham fees to family members. They did make a couple of fair decisions recently but I think that's because they knew they were becoming severely disrespected. But now it; it's back to business as usual. - a powerful extension of the Republican Party.
IMHO, the Roberts court is illegitimate. Its legitimacy died when Mitch McConnell refused act as prescribed in the Constitution to provide Advice and Consent wrt President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The Court further lost legitimacy when a illegitimate president, elected with the assitance of a foreign enemy, appointed three justices to the court. Accordingly, any and all 6 Republican appointed justices v. 3 Democratic appointed justices rulings are illegitimate.
My hope is that these egregious decisions will drive voters to the polls so eventually future courts will undue these contrived decisions.
What happens when Lorie Smith proclaims that her religion prevents her from creating a website for couples like my wife and me, where one partner is Christian (at least, by birth) and the other is Jewish? Or when she declares that she will not design a site for two Jews, because we have been condemned to eternal damnation? Or that she won’t work for a mixed-race couple?
As for the student loan case, it is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats. Many people oppose forgiving student loans for reasons unrelated to racism. Now we have another issue to campaign against the court on, one that will not galvanize the other side so much.
Robert Hubbell’s fine righteous anger is fully justified by the several decisions this week of a renegade Supreme Court. He has used a perfect, if somewhat old-fashioned word--“reactionary”--to describe their behavior, one barely disguised by flimsy pseudo-legal rhetoric. That the SCOTUS term has ended gives the sane and sentient majority the time to absorb just how serious a blow the Court has struck against the liberties of us all--of whatever ethnicity or sexual orientation. My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024. These six “Justices” have declared war on virtually the entire nation. We must, in response, take up arms against the sea of troubles these mendacious rulings have created. This Court is the product of the clever machinations of a deranged minority. We the majority must fight them with every tool at our disposal. To quote Goethe, “There is nothing the rabble fear more than intelligence.” We, the rational and reasonable majority, should not fear the open conflict needed to defeat the forces of darkness.
Very well said, Mr. Hubbell - you expressed what many feel - I’m hoping Justice John Roberts gets wind of your truthful, sincere criticism - we appreciate you!!