421 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

How the heck do the trolls even find your newsletter?? <sigh> I hope you are able to enjoy some time off!

Expand full comment

People forward the newsletter or post it on Facebook. Someone's "Uncle Fred" sees it and becomes incensed. They then try to start a Twitter-fight in the Comments section.

Expand full comment

That's sad ....

Expand full comment

Thanks for checking in and culling the trolls… now back to your long weekend!

Expand full comment

Bless you. Despise the trolls. There is a place for them all in the bell realm.

Enjoy a day off.

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Yes, it is time to go read Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience and stand up for Justice. There is a time and place for civil disobedience like here and now.. The People united shall never be defeated! My favorite song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UGs0rdhq8

Expand full comment

Thank you Robert Hubbell, and this community, for confirming and clarifying the truth -- the cruelty -- of this atrocious unsupreme court decision and renegade court, and for joining together in solidarity.

Onward with Civil Disobedience!

In addition, grassroots activism -- MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State to National.

Onward for Justice.

Expand full comment

Like: "MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State"

Expand full comment

It was a Substack comment (trying now to recall author to credit attribution) advocating for MASSIVE turnout, that I took the liberty to borrow, while writing Postcards To Voters & Vote Forward letters to Voters, to vote NO for Ballot Issue 1, and protect womens Freedom of Choice, against the mischief of the Dobbs decision.

Expand full comment

I hope everyone read the comment from a reader yesterday explaining that the cost of postcards has gone up as well as the cost of postcard stamps. It's going to be 51 cents to send one postcard after July 9th. Buy stamps now!!!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jul 1, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Re:Civil disobedience: see massive nationwide protests in France because a policeman shot and killed one teenager. Such everyday US behavior is considered unacceptable to the French and they make it clear to the authorities.

Expand full comment

Melinda Lecomte,

Indeed, the French are holding massive protests.

Police shootings are unacceptable to most of us in the U.S. as well.

Regretfully — a powerful majority refuses to do anything about it.

Gun safety laws and proposals for more adequate training for Police and for gun safety legislation are perpetually voted down. By the mischief of Trump-appointed conservative judges and Republican leaders who support the NRA.

Disheartening!

The Activate America grassroots organization is running a postcard campaign for gun safety laws.

Expand full comment

I remember a drawing of people marching for justice. A young person sighs, "How long do we have to keep doing this?" An older woman replies, "As long as it takes. I've been at it for 36 years so far."

Well, I've been at it since before seeing that drawing during the war on Viet Nam. All the progress we made, and now we live in a country turning more and more toward bigotry. This horrible, fascist, power-worshipping, constitution-despising court majority has been making me sick.

But no matter how much power they grab, these fascists are a minority in this country. No matter how deeply they believe in their right to diminish others, they are plain wrong. And none of us has to stand alone.

Thank you Robert Hubbell and all the people commenting in outrage. I'll take some recovery time and then get back to writing those voter postcards.

Here's a song that helps me, Carrie Newcomer singing Lean in toward the Light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxAUmNjWaIs

Expand full comment

Although the fascists are in the minority, we also must remember that Hitler never got more than 40% of the vote before he became the legal Chancellor and took over Germany completely.

Thank you for sharing that beautiful (and pertinent) song!

Expand full comment

Thank you Joan!

A beautiful song, with a powerful message.

Expand full comment

Yes, I agree. We The People have had it with this dreadful discriminatory Supremacist Court. We must take action. NOW

Expand full comment

Cathy. Que fuerte!!!

Expand full comment

I'm not positive, Cathy, but I'm guessing you meant the Randy Rainbow song "Donald in the John With Boxes" is your favorite. If so, it's at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ. If I'm wrong, excuse my intrusion. Have a good day!

Expand full comment

No, This is the Chilean Revolutionary song El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido. In English: The People United Shall Never Be Defeated. It's popularity has spread across the world and is used in many countries. I first heard it when a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard who I played chamber music with said I should go hear Stephen Drury play what the professor thought was the greatest composition of the 20th century at New England Conservatory written by Frederick Rzewski. The piano work has 36 variations on this song as the theme. Each set of six variations represents the five fingers of the hand with the sixth being the combination of the five representing the closed fist. It is an amazing piece that starts with the naivity of the young rebels and goes through battles, the frozen feeling of witnessing the death of a colleague and then finally at the end the theme comes back with the experience of war but also the hope and determination for the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyc-fKM2Wc starting at 10:20. In this time I listen to it frequently. We, the People, all of us united this time!

Expand full comment

OK, Now that I went and listened to it I see you're having some fun! Unfortunately, the subject just makes me throw up...

Expand full comment

C C, Ha!

Thanks.

Expand full comment

Cathy Learoyd - I love this! Thank you for sharing this song. 💕 I want to brush off a little Pete Seeger at my next local public (pretty small) demonstration. 😊

Expand full comment

Hi Cathy, my 'sister' living in another, shall we say, difficult state!

YES to civil disobedience, although I am not yet sure what form it will take. It is "like here and now," so I hope enough people will get on board to make a movement. Then we'll find out....

Loved the song, although my Spanish is quite rusty. I got the gist of it, and the passion from years of struggle and exploitation.

Libertad!

Expand full comment

Let me know what you decide to do. I came up with a great name for the reactionary Injustices: the RAT pack (Roberts Alito Thomas)

Expand full comment

First comment re the above song from 9 years ago: "Hold on, Columbia. Don't let go of the streets!" People chimed in with support and encouragement from around the globe.

There ARE more of us.

Forceful, beautiful song.

Expand full comment

Great song! Thank you!

Expand full comment

the ol

what are you doing in jail

What are you doing out ? i'm resdy

Expand full comment

We need judicial reform. The only way that will happen if D’s prevail in all three chambers. I’m shaken to my core.

Expand full comment

The best defense is a powerful offense.

Expand full comment

Very informative about Supreme Court reform. Thanks!

Expand full comment

Thank you for the link. This'll keep me busy for a while today.

Expand full comment

Wonderful! Thank you.

Expand full comment

Thank you for posting this Erica. Very informative.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this. Very compelling reading.

Expand full comment

This is the most eloquent Today's Edition since I've been a subscriber. And deservedly so. The conservatives on the Court are behaving like kids in a sandbox with their nonsense. The idea of hearing a phony case! I really like Gary S's suggestion, that people can refuse to abide by SCOTUS' fiats, and real cases can be brought to the court. And Robert, you bet I'm angry!

This one's going out to my email list of 70-plus.

Expand full comment

I always "share" to the public on Facebook.

Expand full comment

If I share something like this on facebook I'm lucky if five people see it.

Expand full comment

That's five more who wouldn't have seen it!

Expand full comment

I said I'm ***lucky if*** five people see it. And, if I email, I can count on 70 people seeing it.

Expand full comment

Gary S. You are absolutely correct. Let’s all put on our Henry David Thoreau pants. Or, ladies might recall Alice Paul, Rosa Parks, or Jane Fonda & Gloria Steinem. It is really time to fight back with vigor.

Expand full comment

Let's add Francis Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the New Deal.

Expand full comment

These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.

As Joyce Vance writes tonight (7/01/23), we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned.

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/enough-with-the-court

Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ now, and a slippery slope for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. coming up in the pipeline as funneled by the dark moneyed Federalist Society.

The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like Robert has been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."

https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff

Also support JustMajority.org

Expand full comment

Exactly my first thought why doesn't Harvard just say we don't comply

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Excellent article, Robert; and bravo to you, David:

This is yet another blow to what heretofore been a requirement, “standing”. The Court sees itself free to give advisory opinions. They have freed themselves to render theoretical opinions on how they believe things “ought to be”. The unintended consequences seem infinite.

Worse, and a logical outfall from ‘303’, is the reinstatement of “separate but equal”, a monstrous and dangerous genie in a bottle.

Expand full comment

It’s so very rich that these extremist judges all refused to answer any questions about a “theoretical case” during their confirmation hearings, yet are okay with ruling on a “theoretical case” once they’re on the Supreme Court. It truly is a Sham Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

Oooo... Good point! I had missed this particular bit of irony, but Yes! They are immune to shame and blind to (their own) hypocrisy.

Expand full comment

100% agree. Total slippery slope straight to discrimination on all fronts. Plain as day.

Expand full comment

Frightening comment, when you put it that way hungry people could be denied purchasing food for any reason at all.

Expand full comment

The John Roberts gang would see that as a positive feature: hungry people will work in poor conditions for low wages.

Expand full comment

They miss the good ole days when the right sort of person could own a 3/5 person outright. If only the little people would stop claiming that they have rights which must be respected!

Expand full comment

John Roberts and his gang consistently find in favor of the right to discriminate in favor of white right-wing Christians and against anyone else, to help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Exceptions may apply, mainly to preserve his own power.

Expand full comment

303 Creative having now effectively posted such a sign, it will be interesting to see how Ms. Smith's business develops over the next few months and years. I've sometimes thought that the most effective solution to the problem of discriminatory businesses is to publicize their discrimination and let the forces of the market determine their fate. It would be nice to believe that they'd fail in short order but I'm no longer confident of that.

The Court would have been on much firmer ground had they decided that all discrimination was unconstitutional, including discrimination against non-legacy applicants to Harvard, non-athletic recruits to UNC, and others similarly situated. That, it seems to me, is the indisputable intent of the ideal of equal protection under the law.

In a practical sense, however, I don't understand why anyone would want to 'force' a creative person to use their creativity on one's behalf. As with forcing a surgeon to perform and operation, the potential for an adverse outcome not demonstrably under the control of the party being coerced is much greater than any benefit that might accrue. It's a larger and more serious application of the old joke about two servers watching a customer take a bite and one says to the other "He ate it", laughing hysterically.

Expand full comment

Excellent comment, David!

Expand full comment

Thanks.

Expand full comment

Like the term "Affirmative Prejudice"! Just came up with another neat Acronym -- "Affirmative Prejudice from the RAT pack (Roberts Alito Thomas)".

Expand full comment

Well said, David.

Expand full comment

BRILLIANT!

Expand full comment

I love the way you think! Brilliant analysis!

Expand full comment

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 .

Expand full comment

Good points. The SCROTUM has been clearly bought off. They reek with fraud. These decisions should be ignored.

Expand full comment

Please, don't conflate a vital part of every male's body with this court. Or, more generally, don't use the names of body parts, male OR female, as epithets.

Expand full comment

"feckless Courtzilla" 👏 Cruelty is point.

Expand full comment

Bravo,Diane!

Expand full comment

Diane. My former boss used to say “The Process is the Process”. You’ve opened an idea that says, “Hey Court, here’s a new case to deal with. Its all legal until you guys tell me its not”

Flood the Zone with Progress, let the citizens vote for those who provide positive change

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Thank you. You are eloquent. These are unthinkable times.

Expand full comment

Thank you very much, Sharon. "Unthinkable" says it all.

Expand full comment

Horrifying.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Jim, I was a middle school teacher and know next to nothing about the law, so I'm glad to learn that my confusion was warranted. I can't understand how this case skipped to the top like this. If others can elucidate, I would be most grateful.

Expand full comment

Republicans, from the Supreme Court justices to the party elite, game these cases out. For example, look at how they took over the Court, from refusing to do their Constitutional duty of providing Advice and Counsel on Prescient Obama's Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to appointing a religious zealot in a single federal judge district with an ultra-conservative appeals court to facilitate the end the sale of the mifepristone, better known as the abortion pill.

This isn't jurisprudence. It is manipulation and insurrection.

Expand full comment

I can only click "like" once so I'm going to add it here: Five likes and a "hell yeah".

Expand full comment

Andrew, is expanding the court the only way to get some fair play? Some real jurisprudence? Do you see an expansion of the court as a possibility in the near future?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

The particular males you're talking about, Ally, obviously have no "jewels."

Expand full comment

As a manager I was once pressuring another manager to commit to a rather aggressive product development schedule. He finally said, "Cathy, please don't cut off my balls!" I quipped in reply, "Don't worry, I've never needed any."

Expand full comment

I laughed out loud.

Expand full comment

Your a tough lady

Expand full comment

😂😂

Expand full comment

Correct--they are Federalist Society puppets, and puppets have no balls. Lenny Leo is pulling the strings and they obey like good little legal zombies. Outrageous. Yes! to civil disobedience.

Expand full comment

You could add the entire rethug party to the ‘no jewels’ club.

Expand full comment

Perfect, Ally! SCROTUS it shall be henceforth.

Expand full comment

I can’t edit my comment from my phone. This is just to add that I’ll probably alternate SCROTUS with Extreme Court, which is what I’ve been calling it.

Expand full comment

Ally,

My husband and I were talking about just this point this morning. What if a business refused to serve Maga Republicans? or Evangelicals? What if a college refused to admit Jews? or Catholics? It seems that if any other group is substituted for Black or LGBTQ, it would be obvious that the college or business was discriminating. I fear that only Evangelical Christians have any rights in 2023 America.

Frankly, I fear for our country, our democracy. Period.

Expand full comment

Same, Hermine.

Expand full comment

I use SCROTUMS* - the M standing for Minority.

Expand full comment

Question: What if a majority of the votes for a controversial Supreme Court decision came from its women members, and they were repeatedly called "The Boobs" on FOX News. Any objections??

Men don't like having our anatomy turned into insults any more than women do. I urge folks not to start that.

IMO, it's this kind of language mistake that periodically has amounted to the Left shooting itself in the foot. The fun of being outrageous can overtake our awareness of the need to keep our tent large and welcoming.

Thanks for hearing me out!

Expand full comment

With you 1000%, Ally.

Expand full comment

"If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry 'discrimination' and demand 'justice'."

Ally, this is the next logical step. In fact, this week the NY Times published an article titled "Religious Freedom Arguments Underpin Wave of Challenges to Abortion Bans." Here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/health/abortion-religious-freedom.html

Republicans have spent the last 40 years gaming out how to control the Supreme Court. It is now time for Democrats and Independents to do the same. Hopefully the tide will turn and and the egregious rulings of the Roberts' Court will be sucked out to sea like the flotsam that they are.

Expand full comment

I wish people would not use the names of body parts, male or female, as epithets.

Expand full comment