759 Comments

Would the same standards apply if she refused to create web sites for hetero Christian couples? But really - who is behind this? It seems oddly random that one lone web designer would come up with this idea and bring it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

And yet, no same sex couple even asked the web designer to create a web page for their wedding--it was a hypothetical and you can't have a court case if someone brings about a complaint if they don't have a real life complaint against them. Yet, the Supremacist Court does regardless because no one regulates them...supreme abuse of power!

Expand full comment

Yes, this fact trumps all the other issues with this illegitimate SCOTUS decision. Smith has not suffered any actual harm, therefore she lacked standing to bring a complaint before the Court. The fact that the Court ever granted certiorari in this case is proof of how desperate the radical "conservative' justices are to lay down even the most flimsy precedents in "religious freedom" cases, before the American people finally force the other branches of government to rein in their lawlessness.

Expand full comment

If your religious beliefs are paramount then you have the right to discriminate. That is basically my summary. Before long we will once again see separate restrooms, separate entrances, or no service if you aren’t a white, christian, and hetero male.

Expand full comment

Christine, yes. And people scoffed when we said the election of tfg would be the start of a literal Handmaid's Tale. But here we are...

Expand full comment

Not necessarily true.

Expand full comment

I don’t follow. What is not necessarily true?

Expand full comment

Thank you John parrticularly the reference to the "flimsy precedent" manufactured by KRISTIN WAGGONER. Source on the faux Plaintiif's Attorney's name is Amy Howe at SCOTUS blog.com.

Expand full comment

Right on! SCOTUS is power grabbing over other arms of government without restraint. What can stop them?

Expand full comment

There is drafted Legilation to create 1 SCOTUS seat for each of the 13 separate Circuit Courts. 7 vs 6 = 13.

Expand full comment

Bryan, tempting as this is, when Biden says this would set up too dangerous a precedent, I believe him. We need to have reform to block sexual predators from being seated and for removing corrupt and criminal judges.

Expand full comment

UPDATE: All eyes on State i4f Colorado Attorney Genera, PHILIP J WEISER, to file a Motion for Re-hearing ( Rule 44) at SCOTUS within twenty-five (25) days of the "advisory opinion" given to a a psuedo web designer based on pure hypothetical, FALSE facts.

If I were the CO AG I would hire NEAL KATYAL to file a Rule 44.2 Motion for Re-hearimg making NEAL's fifty-first (51st) apperance at SCOTUS. Then stand back.

Background: Alexandra, I realize I owe you a response. I am very busy digesting this Communities' thoughts including your important Comment. I, of course, concur with your Comments about the nomination process such as it is & the need for urgent repairs.

Also, there has been another Mass Shooting in Baltimore, MD. 2 deceased. & 28 injured per msnbc Anchor, Judy. Note also, SCOTUS has a 2nd Amendment case on the docket next Term.

Further Reply to Alexandra at 8:30 am Pacific with Context: 1.) 4/14/22 was the date first formal proposal for the 13-Justices-for- the-13-Circuits Bill; 2) the Judiciary Act of 2023 was revised on 5/16/23.:3.) A caucus of Dem Senators are involved notanly Sen. Whitehouse with many factors churning.

The End..

Expand full comment

The right wing nuts (SC especially) smell success in practically all areas of their agenda. I predict that they will Take it to the mat while they have the means.

Expand full comment

and that takes political capital ....

Expand full comment

Standing law is different in 1A cases were a chilling effect is claimed; it doesn’t require actual damages.

Expand full comment

I defer to your experience in law. However, where is the chilling? Smith didn't have a business. She alleged that if she chose to start a business the hypothetical that she might be asked to provide service to a gay couple might force her to violate her sincerely-held bigoted beliefs against a protected class -- let alone that she perjured herself when she presented "evidence" that was probably made up from whole cloth after the suit was filed. As my kids would say: "suss"

Expand full comment
Jul 2, 2023·edited Jul 2, 2023

She lied. Probably a sock puppet for christo-fascists. Joyce Vance explains it better than I can. She’s on Substack.

Expand full comment

Zero doubt that she's carrying water for Alliance Defending Freedom, who certainly fit the Christofacist profile https://secularhumanism.org/2020/08/the-christian-rights-destructive-courthouse-moment-has-arrived/

Expand full comment

Standing is different in 1A cases where the party claims a chilling effect. Actual damages are not required. Apparently truth is not required, either.

Expand full comment

Yes, Sophia at least an abuse of judicial power possibly much worse. The Associated Press is reporting the alleged customer "Stewart" likely never existed as a genuine customer meaning the required "actual controversy" did NOT exist. See , Sotomayor's Dissent joined by Justices Kagan &Jackson. on absence of standing. Note, dissents are not the forum for newly discovered facts not part of record on appeal.

Apparently, the State of Colorado did make inquiries into the CADA legitimacy of this manufactured claim. Further & intense investigations are needed asap to uncover admissible facts. This manufactured opinion is now open to collateral attack.

UPDATE: The Guardian's Sam Levine in New York has the developing late 6/29 story in factual context & perhaps spoiliation of evidence,. See, "The Fake Gay Marriage Website ...".

FURTHER UPDATE: I & others have asked the CO AG to file a Rule 44 Motion for a Re-Hearing within 25 days of this bogus advisory opinion, an appalling license to discriminate based on a fake controversy.

Expand full comment

I'm at a loss as to how the justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson can sit on the same "bench" as the other six. The stench must be nauseating.

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023

I posted about this exact same thing--how sorry I feel for them having to show up to work every morning with these ass****s. And quitting your job is not a realistic option....

Expand full comment

I can't imagine working in that environment. Are they expected interact with them socially? Acting like they are friends. I could not do that.

Expand full comment

Usually, group pictures of the SCOTUS show the justices smiling. I commented to a friend this week that I saw a group photo where Justice Jackson was not smiling and looked very sad.

Expand full comment

Anthony, they do it for all of us. I don't know that I could bear it, either.

Expand full comment

What happened to the need for a petitioner to confirm damage to have standing to bring a suit?

Expand full comment

Not certain Ed but, apparently the Petitioner pled an alleged 1st Amendment violation that she was somehow being forced to "speak". Sotomayor Dissent: "The Court's decision conflates discrimination with freedom of expression . This is grave error".

I want to read Lawrence Tribe's analysis.

Expand full comment

Freedom of expression is not a free for all. There have to be balancing guardrails to ensure one's "free expression" does not preclude another's social/individual rights. That's the problem with a religious intolerance which stampedes over this balance with its own absolute convictions. Of course, we are mainly talking about "sex" here. Shake my head

Expand full comment

Well written Frank, thx.

Expand full comment

The whole thing was based on lies and deceit, but that is the Fascist/NAZI GQP mantra, ''lie and deceive'' and their bought and paid for Extreme Court.

Expand full comment

Exactly! This was a setup. Were the republicans on the court part of that end?

Expand full comment

And how much cash and how many vacations and private jet rides did they take in order to "decide" these absurd decisions?

Expand full comment

SCORRUPTUS.

Expand full comment

I like this, Sander. I'll stick with my SCROTUS because, well, I am well-attuned with my junior high self.

Expand full comment

WOW ! Ilike it.

Expand full comment

It makes sense, doesn't it? The two justices that were found out to take lavish gifts from rich people, ALWAYS vote for the rich...their excuses are pathetic. Congress needs to act on this--if a justice candidate's action is contrary to what they said during their confirmation hearing under oath, they are immediately relieved of their position....

Expand full comment

Important, the Judiciary Act of 2023.

Expand full comment

I was using SCROTUS but then someone here said "The Supremacist Court." That really nails it.

(I would love to give the poster credit but It's so hard to find a post with Substack's system....)

Expand full comment

WOW, I am glad to see that I wasn’t alone in my thinking!

Expand full comment

I totally agree with that.

Expand full comment

Thank you! No standing, no more stare decisis and there is someone here who thinks that Biden was raised Methodist. We are in the Upside Down, where is Hopper?

Expand full comment

Lorie Smith indicated that this was a RELIGIOUS issue.

Dear Ms Smith, let me remind you of some of the CORE teachings of not just Christianity, but most major religions: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” AND “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16)

Perhaps we shall meet in H E double toothpicks.

Expand full comment

I am surprised that this case got that far....wouldn’t most lower court judges throw that out, for “lack of evidence”? Sounds very unscrupulous to me too.

Expand full comment

I have doubted her veracity this entire time. Follow the money. The trail isn't long.

Expand full comment

The case is flimsy window dressing for the blatant machinations of a corrupted judiciary.

Expand full comment

After all, half of the right wing court members were elected by an man under many counts of criminal indictment.

Expand full comment

But also they were put in place by someone who bought them...Leonard Leo!

Expand full comment

That would be likely. Do you have a story on that?

Expand full comment

Google Leonard Leo or Federalist Society and you will find LOTS of information.

Expand full comment

This is from last August, but still appropriate...

Watch "Top Psychiatrist SOUNDS ALARM on Trump’s Deteriorating Mental Fitness | The Weekend Show" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/DREKGn4nPhQ

Expand full comment

Just watched my replay of Jonathon Capehart sitting in for Lawrence O'Donnel's Friday show on a Holiday Weekend: Jonathan notes, "No gay couple actually asked for the [CO] designer's work". So, the decision is based on a website designer's alleged 1st Amendment rights that were "hypothetical challenged" by a "hypothetical gay couple" who" hypothetically asked for design services".

The faux decision is flimsy & vulnerable to collateral attack.

Expand full comment

The wedding site case sounds like an illegal advisory opinion by the US Supreme Court. The federalist society has managed to remove the governor off the engine of the judiciary. The supreme court is now damaging the judiciary’s crankshaft, push rods and valves. This destroys the engine and requires replacement.

Expand full comment

Exactly!!

Expand full comment

Who paid for her to take it to the extreme court?

Expand full comment

Alliance Defending Freedom which is described in the link for Guardian article from yesterday. Of course also funding from Leonard Leo’s SCOTUS dark money shop

Expand full comment

I heard it was Josh Hawley’s wife!

Expand full comment

There is a right wing group that took up her case, though I don't remember the name. It is a prospecting case intended to push legal limits.

Expand full comment

It's a Christian right group Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF. There's a Wikipedia entry, if you want more info.

Expand full comment

Love how they use names the exact opposite of their intent. Straight out of Goebbels. But not a new thing. Goes back to Reagan. Peggy Noonan was his script writer. Wonder what she blathers today. Opinions of SC action???

Expand full comment

Thanks, Ruth!

Expand full comment

I hope someone brings that exact scenario. The Satanic Temple has the resources...

Expand full comment

Sharon, this did not pass the “smell test”! The postal stamp on the “email” shows she mailed the letter after the case was filed. There was no company, no one had complained. Just seems very, very fishy to me.

Expand full comment

She certainly has gotten publicity for her web site -- free publicity if others paid the legal and other expenses.

Expand full comment
Jul 3, 2023·edited Jul 3, 2023

Molly, the dark money funds everything nefarious and dangerous to democracy. We must never underestimate them….maybe Leonard Leo funded her, who knows?

Expand full comment

How does the Supreme Court's decision distinguish between a web designer who refuses to create a web site for a gay couple and one that refuses to create a web site for a Black couple? Both are protected classes, and the designer's decision can just as reasonably be based on personal religious beliefs in either case.

Expand full comment

How about an orthodox Muslim who refuses to create a site for a Christian couple? Or an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish operator who refuses to serve a Christian couple or a Muslim couple?

Expand full comment

Yep, perhaps every business in the US should refuse to serve the Thomases for being an interracial couple....

Expand full comment

Or for being a Seditionist couple.

Expand full comment

That's probably next.

Expand full comment

Let George Soros’s son bankroll!

Expand full comment

Still waiting on my check from George. I have been accused of being on his payroll.. lol

Expand full comment

Same, Jeri. Never seen a cent of that money I'm accused of taking for being a liberal thinker.

Expand full comment

The 14th amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of race. The case was decided on free speech ground not religious freedom. I know, it doesn’t make sense but they did it anyway.

Expand full comment

The free speech argument can serve as an end run around the 14th amendment just as it effectively nullifies laws against anti-gay legislation. At least it can for this court.

Expand full comment

"she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay"

And what is this "own words" thing? Can commercial printers decide not to print invitations for gay clients? For black clients? Can restaurant owners reject a gay luncheon?

Expand full comment

After this ruling they will likely feel empowered to. I'll be upping my donation to the ACLU in the hopes that they will take every one of these cases to court. Let's make it expensive for religious bigots to discriminate against protected classes. "Oh, you think an illegitimate ruling by SCOTUS will protect you? Yeah well you're going to have to hire a lawyer anyway."

Expand full comment

That's a great idea, John.

Expand full comment

Same here. I have been "a card-carrying member of the ACLU" since 1986, two years before George Bush tried to disparage Dukakis with that statement.

Expand full comment

Yes!

Expand full comment

The SC should have never agreed to hear this ridiculous cruel case! Leo probably set Smith up to further put his digs in at liberal causes. Illegitimate justices must not be granted lifetime appointments especially when they have no ethics whatsoever.

Expand full comment

Too similar circumstances as the last cake case, or was it a website? These cases are not only bogus, they have to be created by the extreme right for the Supreme court.

Expand full comment

Her case was funded by right wing dark money! At the time of the filing she Did Not ‘ have a website!

Secondly as noted by HCR “ Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic reported that, while the man allegedly behind the email does exist, he is an established designer himself (so why would he hire someone who was not?), is not gay, and married his wife 15 years ago. He says he never wrote to Smith,

and the stamp on court filings shows she received it the day after she filed the suit.”

Appears that the maga lawyer who wrote the law suit subscribed to trumps lying habit! Note the last clause of the quote…the stamp reveals the lies! I guess truthfulness is not part of her alleged Christian principles!

Expand full comment

It's the bakery all over again.

Expand full comment

The ones behind it are the people donating the “Dark Money” to get their beliefs become the law of the land.

Expand full comment

You can believe that Karl Rove, James O’Keefe, or a similar “dirty tricks” expert was behind it. The repubs have no shortage of these cretins. And no shortage of money.

Expand full comment

Absolutely bizarre!

Expand full comment

The founder of Domino’s pizza has used the millions he made to establish things like the town in FL where Ave Maria University is located and legal firms like the Thomas More Society, which will look for plaintiffs.

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023

Thank you Justice Kagan and others for honing in on the essential truth of what's happened: the right-wing majority, precedent and laws be damned, is making things up to suit its out-of-the-mainstream views.

One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.

President Biden yesterday said he didn't support expanding the court because it would politicize it. A baffling statement given that the court isn't just politicized, it seems to be intentionally harming tens of millions of people. Oh what Trump has wrought.

Expand full comment

'President Joe Biden continued criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down colleges' affirmative action programs in an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” but said trying to expand the court would be a "mistake." (NBC)

WHY, Mr. President?

'New Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds continuing decline in approval of the way the U.S. Supreme Court is doing its job, with amount varying according to respondents’ partisanship' May 28, 2023

MILWAUKEE – A new Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds that 44% of adults approve of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, while 56% disapprove. This is a slight decline from January, when 47% approved and 53% disapproved. Approval of the Court’s work hit a low of 38% in July 2022 and had risen gradually in every-other-month polling until this new poll. In all of these surveys since the middle of last year, approval has remained well below the 60% rate from July 2021. (Marquette University Law School)

Our Education Secretary knew how to make points after the Supreme Court decisions.

'Education Secretary Miguel Cardona called out the lurch toward turning the government over to the wealthy, supported as it is by religious foot soldiers like Lorie Smith: “Today, the court substituted itself for Congress,” Cardona told reporters. “It’s outrageous to me that Republicans in Congress and state offices fought so hard against a program that would have helped millions of their own constituents. They had no problem handing trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations and the super wealthy.”

'Cardona made his point personal: “And many had no problems accepting millions of dollars in forgiven pandemic loans, like Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma had more than $1.4 million in pandemic loans forgiven. He represents 489,000 eligible borrowers that were turned down today. Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky had more than $4.4 million forgiven. He represents more than 90,000 eligible borrowers who were turned down today. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia had more than $180,000 forgiven. She represents more than 91,800 eligible borrowers who were turned down today.” (Letter)

That put it in a nutshell! Thank you, Secretary Cardona.

Expand full comment

The hypocrites were called out. I hope the voters in those states are listening .

Expand full comment

I doubt it, Angelica. They listen to what Right-wing media tells them, and nothing else. They’re brainwashed!

Expand full comment

Democrats have got to learn to play “hardball” ... Steve Bannon and many of his ilk (look at how Mitch McConnell treated Obama and Merrick Garland) realize - seem to know as a fact - that the Democrats tend to bring a pillow to a knife or gun fight ... it won’t and doesn’t work that way!!!

Expand full comment

I think the Dems think playing hardball means adopting Repub fascist and dirty tricks tactics. I would like them to know that NO, it doesn't mean that! It means using every legal and Constitutional tool, and fighting like he'll with the tools we have, while working toward dismantling the laws Repubs havevput on the books to make their illegal actions legal.

Expand full comment

Call out disinformation posted by members of Congress & their followers with information. Even if only 1 person is enlightened by it.

Expand full comment

From my decidedly limited understanding of such things, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be expanded by executive fiat. If that were the case, we would be subject to an "accordion court", depending on the whim of those in power. It would take something akin to a constitutional convention, with a 2/3 majority to ratify. I do not see a way forward there.

That said, it is high time the court was expanded. Each justice is supposed to represent a particular circuit. There are 9 justices and 13 circuits. Why the court wasn't expanded as circuits were added must be a fascinating story, perhaps Dr. Cox-Richardson could help us understand it sometime. I propose the court be expanded to 13 justices with an ombudsman-like office to oversee recusal, ethical and other disputes.

Expand full comment

The number of justices is set by Congress. No constitutional amendment necessary. While we are at it, we also need to expand the House of Representatives to meet our increased population.

Expand full comment

The judiciary Act of 2023!

(Cool ... more Norcal) :)

Expand full comment

So, if state’s rights are truly what matters, why is the supreme court (I’m not capitalizing on purpose) sticking its nose to legislation here in Colorado? If we want to be liberal, then let us be liberal. The so-called conservative justices are legislating from the bench -- hmmm, sounds like fascism to me.

Expand full comment

I'm trying to find a listing comparing congress people accepting loan forgiveness with students having loans to forgive. So far all I can find is the Huffpost mention of Cardona's remarks. Anybody?

Expand full comment

Eileen, if you are referring to the quote of words expressed by the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, that appeared in my comment, the quote was copied directly from HRC's Letter as indicated.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Fern. Yes, I knew you were quoting directly from the letter. What I'm wondering is if there is further information about the Secretary of Education's comments, such as more of the hypocrisy of Congress members accepting loan forgiveness and then denying it to students.

Expand full comment

Eileen, I would Google his name and check news as well as recent quotes of his. There may be analysis and reports concerning the issue he raised, which may provide more names and details. It's a matter of some research. I do not know what may be in print concerning subject. Happy Hunting!

Expand full comment

I don’t understand that either...seems that expanding the court to reflect the increased # of districts is fair and reasonable...not politicizing it at all.

Expand full comment

I am only guessing, but I think Biden is taking the high road—bowing to traditional & longstanding practices not to interfere with the separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial)….quite unlike the brazen promises to politicize and weaponize these very institutions by the likes of Trump, DeSantis, etc. I have to say, being mostly clueless on the specifics & intricacies of how it would work, the idea put forth to have a SC justice for each Fed district…that kinda makes sense to me.

Expand full comment

I believe he said he was afraid that if he expanded the court, any president could and it would irreparable damage the court by making it intentionally political. All the efforts to prevent politicization have failed because of the games played in the Senate and the lack of ethics rules for the Justices. The Senate should adopt rules on how many days to an election are allowed before a president can't send forward a candidate. The Senate must take up a president's candidate and return a decision within the president's term. No games.

Expand full comment

The "Senate" - isn't a "senate"a wise, upper house? worthy and proven lawgivers??

Expand full comment

Without diving into the etiology of the word "senate", I can tell you that in the Constitution, the separation of the House (by popular election every two years, the number based on relative population of the states, with enslaved persons counting as 3/5 of a person for census purposes) and the Senate (appointed by the governors of the state, and allotting each state two senators) into the lower and upper houses respectively was designed to put a damper on "the will of the people". Senators moved from appointment to election via the 17th Amendment in 1913.

One would devoutly hope that both the Senate and the House would have "worthy" people elected to those bodies.

Expand full comment

Yeah, Ally, in a perfect world they would be worthy of the responsibility and honor of such a public servant role. Of late, and as Heather would probably note in the past as well, such is not the actual case, but an ideal to aspire to. Seems like many of ‘em forgot that part!

Expand full comment

I agree with you, Barbara. Biden’s hoping to lead by example and knows an expansion of the SCOTUS would be interpreted as a politicized decision. Unfortunately, the Right itself already politicizes everything that goes counter to its own self-preserving, power-expanding agendas.

Expand full comment

The ostrich is not the creature to emulate at this point.

Expand full comment

And you just know the far-right (having hijacked the Republican Party) would do so in a nanosecond if it suited their purposes, as they’ve shown before. It is such a conundrum to me at the thought of having to resort to unfair and distasteful (maybe even harmful and cruel) methods that an opponent uses without losing one’s integrity and soul?

Expand full comment

That high road leads off the cliff. Ted Kennedy should have figured that out after he bowed to W, back in the day. At least dueling fools have the same weapons.

Expand full comment

Michael, by stating "One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.", you are hurting John Roberts' feelings. He already asked that you kindly stop and leave the Court alone.

Expand full comment

Doug, don't forget his "worry" about how The Roberts Court would be viewed.

He's off the rails. Completely. The Roberts Court will be historic, but not in the way he hoped. (I hope.)

Expand full comment

It is already historic -- it's sending us back to the early 20th century. (This is sadly funny.)

But let's face it -- he, the Defendant Trump appointees, as well as Thomas and Alito, are merely doing the bidding of their patrons.

I suspect his Court will not be viewed favorably by future historians for its resetting of judicial norms (corruption, standing, precedent, etc.) in pursuit of a restructuring of American society against the wishes and beliefs of the majority of the populace. I'm no expert in the matter, but it's safe to say this Court has removed more rights than it has granted or acknowledged; I fear there is more to come, particularly in regard to LGBTQ+ people.

Expand full comment

Ally, Roberts gave up on the legacy of “his” court years ago. He lost control and never looked back. It appears to me to be time to follow the money and look for an impeachable offense. It worked with Nixon.

Expand full comment

Hahaha

Expand full comment

Boo hoo, John.

Expand full comment

“ One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances…”

As I commented yesterday, once again, the Conservative INJustices of the Supreme Court strike against equality of rights and opportunities. It seems they’ve morphed the interpretation of “supreme” from authority to authoritarianism.

Expand full comment

The name Supreme Court has become evil and dread-inspiring. The Star Chamber, the Inquisition.

Expand full comment

They have become the legislators of the oligarchy.

Expand full comment

De facto. By what right? They (not the law, but they) outrank the President?

Expand full comment

The SCOTUS has no law making or executive functions. It's up to the executive branch to enforce the law. Thought experiment: What if the population lost respect for the "Extreme Court" and ignored their rulings? Particularly the cases where nobody had "standing"? I meant to call SCOTUS the "legislators of and for the oligarchy."

Expand full comment

I agree that President Biden's position on mot wanting to expand the Court because that would politicize it is indeed baffling!

Dear Joe: THE COURT IS ALREADY VERY POLITICIZED! And corrupt!

Not expanding the Court leaves us vulnerable to about 50 years of political decisions by this Court, completely untethered to the Constitution, and extremely damaging to our entire Nation!

Expand full comment

"Completely untethered to the Constitution"??

Expand full comment

Hypocrisy thy name is Roberts

Expand full comment

And Thomas and Alito and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett

Expand full comment

And the whole freakin' Republican Party.

" I am your president of law and order..." - Donald J Trump

Expand full comment

Let’s rephrase, shall we? “I am your president of lawlessness and disorder…” now that rings more true, but then again truth was never his strong point!

Expand full comment

Joe McCarthy was a demagogue and Nixon was bent, but the whole Republican took an Orwellian turn with con-man Reagan's glitzy denigration of democracy snake-oil pitch for plutocracy.

Expand full comment

Yeah, Reagan was my gov for two (!) terms & then elected prez…sorry to say, but it was the first time I realized how gullible/stupid my fellow countrymen could be! I surmise he was not the architect of much/most of “his” policies that we are still trying to recover from all these years later….so much damage done! He was a genial, folksy puppet.

Expand full comment

He was a better actor than I ever gave him credit for. Pretended with the best of the phonies

Expand full comment

Well said and true

Expand full comment

Chump is likely gleeful over these developments. Could he be feeling that he will never be held accountable if he can appeal ad nauseam

Expand full comment

"Your favourite president - me!" - Donald J Trump

Expand full comment

Emetic.

Expand full comment

"Emetic too".

Expand full comment

I would say,'' I am your Dictator of unlawful and disorder,'' Donald J TUMP.

Expand full comment

Who are sitting on high smirking at their lowly adversaries.

Expand full comment

Someone must have him by the balls. Epstein's girlfriend ?

Expand full comment

Goodness don't disparage the Supreme Court's decisions because it will harmful to that institution and to the country? yet the gopers disparage any administration or senate or house that is not run by their own. What hypocrites they be.

Expand full comment

Roberts and his fellow right wing colleagues have no one but themselves to blame for the fact that people are disparaging this court. i hope the three liberals continue to make fiery dissents and read parts of them out loud. How did the web designer even have standing. No one had complained.

Expand full comment

The case was based on a made-up request from a person who is heterosexual, was already married at the time the request was supposedly made, and was unaware he had made that request until he was contacted by the media after the Supreme Court decided the case. Is there no penalty for perjury in front of the highest court in the United States?

I guess if the Supremes get to invent their own ethics rules, they can invent their own laws as well.

Expand full comment

Ethics doesn't enter into it.

Expand full comment

I don't even think ''Ethics'' is a part of their vocabulary. Either that, or they disregard it and believe Ethics doesn't apply to them.

Expand full comment

This case just reeks. The outfit behind this will be everywhere looking for made up cases which should have no standing and then perjury.

Expand full comment

I doubt Roberts gives a damn. His wife pulled in $10M last year, greasing the wheels of the halls of injustice by recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court.

Expand full comment

He only cares enough to whine as he has at the response to these last cases that the liberal justices made. Talk don't wash of course. Whether he likes it or not, he and his court deserve every bit of criticism that they are getting.

Expand full comment

Republicans make it up as they go. Rules are demands they place on others.

Expand full comment

Typical whimsey monarchy rule, medievil.

Expand full comment

Federalist Society, Opus Dei, Evangelical organizations are dangerously close to turning this country into an oligarchic theocracy through the radical members of the Supreme Court who are more beholden to these organizations of which they are members than they are to the Constitution. Money still rules, democracy not so much.

Expand full comment

So agree…have been meaning to join The Freedom From Religion Foundation for awhile…they support the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state. https://ffrf.org/

Expand full comment

Thank you for this site, Barbara.

Expand full comment

Sounds interesting. I’ll check it out and pass it along to friends. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Jesus wept

Expand full comment

What else could he do?

Expand full comment

Ellie Griffith UK expression

Expand full comment

What TFG started by appointing cabinet members that had conflicts of interest (Betsy DeVos) or had advocated defunding their departments (Rick Perry) is being finished by SCOTUS. Any entity that dislikes a government department can bring a case disallowing its ability to govern them. I forecast a drove of cases further attacking the EPA as well as OSHA and the IRS.

Expand full comment

Things have reached a point that is so terrifying... I doubt I will sleep tonight. Dr Richardson’s Letter shows that there are powerful people who are succeeding in bending the arc of history backwards, away from Justice.

Expand full comment

I’m not sure why your comment brought this to mind (and it will NOT help you sleep, sorry), but I recently read (can’t recall source at the moment, but was in one of my science-y feeds) that humans are considered the earth’s apex predator species. OMG, when I read that I was thunderstruck how true it felt…and sad too for so many reasons & implications.

Expand full comment

We have a friend who calls humans the most invasive species. I have just finished a book on the plague which does not address modern times, but the boost the plague made in many ways to invention, certain political entities, etc. One of the things that happened was improvement to ships which allowed them to go further and carry more (and carry guns and cannon). What struck me about the trade numbers in ship building timber, furs, whale, herring, and cod was the fact that a lot of these resources were depleted very quickly causing people to go further afield for some like cod. Of course, there was also a lively slave trade and just not by Europeans, but by Ottomans who had a trade made up of mostly eastern Europeans and East Africans. What was missing of course, was the racial context that prevailed among Europeans.

Expand full comment

I’ve long felt that we are like an out-of-balance virus infecting Mother Earth….thing is we will kill ourselves off before our planet…..Earth will chug along just fine w/o us and, sadly, the many other species and ecosystems we destroyed along the way. We have, what, 5 billion years or so before the sun becomes a red giant, so there’s maybe a chance for another intelligent species to evolve (or one already here!) and just maybe live in harmony w/o being a destroyer.

Expand full comment

I too have come to view humans as a virus and climate change as the earth’s anti-virus, one that we created. The seeds of our own destruction….

Expand full comment

I feel the same. I am always surprised when people talk about several years hence as if things are just going to keep chugging along. Nearly every night the national news has some severe weather news and it is only going to get worse.

Expand full comment

66 million years ago our ancestors were rodents.. we might be ok.

Expand full comment

It has gotten so upsetting to me, i have had to resort to taking OTC sleeping pills. I hate those things as they make me groggy half of the day after taking them.

Expand full comment

Try melatonin. The gummies work well.

Expand full comment

I asked my Doctor about melatonin the last i went to her back in April of this year. She told me since i have to take a fairly large dose of the Beta Blocker drug Metoprolol, it would work against Melatonin because it blocks the effects of it. Back in April 2014, i had major surgery on my heart in which they had to saw my breastbone in half to do the surgery. So i have to take a larger dose of that heart drug Metoprolol than most people do. That drug also prevents the migraine spells i have had since i was 9 years old. It has almost eliminated the migraines, thank goodness. While i had those migraines, i was blind as a bat, for about an hour, and sometimes they made me have trouble speaking and understanding what was being said to me. Terrifying is what they are. I passed that defective gene that causes migraines to my daughter and 2 of my sons, and to one of my granddaughters.

Expand full comment

The right-wing majority is rewriting our laws! They are showing that they believe they are in charge. Roberts and his Federalist Society-bought justices are anti-Constitution and anti-democracy!

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023

I feel so sorry for Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Can you imagine the torture they must feel going to work every morning....

Expand full comment

Agree…time to send them a lovely, uplifting card (snail mail!) to thank them for their steadfast efforts—hey, it’s ALWAYS fun to get a card in the mail, yeah?

Expand full comment

You put a bug in my ear--I'm going to send them a sympathy card....

Expand full comment

If they do in fact rewrite the laws, then they are in charge. What's next?

Expand full comment

Bottom line: this court is out of control and has become hyper-political (Sorry, President Biden, but you're wrong that expanding the court would "politicize it". That horse has done left the barn . . . ). The only way we as a nation can fight this is through the ballot box. This radical court could remain in power for many years yet and there are many many other issues their more radicalized members could conceivably take aim at: same sex marriage, contraception, and church/state separation. Regardless of what the people overwhelmingly wish anymore, this out-of-touch arrogant group of privileged White (sorry Thomas is as "white" as they are) zealots will not rest until their Christian Nationalist agenda is thoroughly enacted as law of the land, Constitution be damned.

Today has really taken a lot out of me. I have read and read and read until I can't read any more. Tonight, when the network news came on, after 15 minutes I simply turned it off. I just couldn't bear any more news. (I turned the channel over to baseball, to watch my Braves pummel another opponent. It's my escape these days . . . ) Even though I guess we knew these rulings were going to be handed down, it nevertheless has made for a very very tiring, upsetting day. If like me you're feeling down at everything, I can offer today's letter from the marvelous Jessica Craven as an antidote. Read it if you need to feel uplifted and empowered. She closes with words I try and live by: "Today we grieve. Tomorrow we fight."

https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/p/chop-wood-carry-water-630-2ae

Expand full comment

Right Bruce ! How does that even make sense ? Reluctance to politicize a court majority of partisan political criminals ? (criminal in that they lied at confirmation) Ballot box - yes. Civil disobedience and unrelenting protests - yes.

Expand full comment

Should we circulate a petition to have Thomas declared as white? Would that send a message?

Expand full comment

I felt the same. We watched Father Brown and then I read a mystery.

Expand full comment

"Today’s Supreme Court, packed as it has been by right-wing money behind the Federalist Society and that society’s leader, Leonard Leo, is taking upon itself power over the federal government and the state governments to recreate the world that existed before the New Deal."

We must expand the Court, and the only way that can happen is if we win the trifecta, so, people, let's go to work or continue work we've been doing, in whatever ways we each can, to make that happen. We, the People, must take back control of lives and all three branches of our government to ensure that it works for the common good, not to line the pockets of the oligarchs who, if not stopped, will continue to wrest freedoms from us all.

Expand full comment

Maybe we all should send messages to Biden!

Expand full comment

He does need to be persuaded to work toward Extreme Court expansion.

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023

I am at complete loss to figure out how we recapture our democracy. It is anarchy to have the Supreme Court, our final legal voice, go THIS rogue….

Perhaps at the ballot box IN 24 we dislodge a lot of these guys who gave us this situation…and elect folks who CAN expand the court if necessary….

I am concerned about the the power of the religious right to create a theocracy rather than a democratic republic….decisions from the Court that impose one set of religious beliefs on ALL of us whether it’s opposition to gay marriage or Dobbs, or the use of contraception …..Being cases in point…..

Expand full comment

What they call religion is white supremacy.

Expand full comment

It is part and parcel their religion, their true beliefs.

Expand full comment

It would take a presidency, a House majority, and 55 Senate seats. The probability is roughly 0%.

Expand full comment

Do you have a suggestion?

Expand full comment

Yes. The crucial factor is turnout. High turnout favors Democrats. Join a get-out-the-vote project that you believe is effective, and put your heart into it, plus whatever money you can spare. The odds will still be poor, but it’s the best you can do.

Expand full comment

I did a bit of checking and it apparently takes 60 Senate votes and I’m trying to locate the number of House votes…perhaps a 2/3s majority…?

Agree on turnout!

Expand full comment

It takes 60 votes under current rules. With 55 seats, they would probably be able to eliminate the filibuster at the beginning of a Senate session, when rules are up for change. Or something like that. Norm Ornstein (or Al Franken) can explain it. The House doesn’t allow filibusters, so just enough seats to get a majority to agree would be sufficient. With Pelosi in charge, 218 seats were enough. Jeffries is unproven but looks promising and still has Pelosi around for advicecanfmd help.

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023

Thanks….I’m hoping that the Dobbs decision and Trumps appalling behavior and the issues that negatively affect young voters might help to produce the necessary turnout…

Expand full comment

The Republican Congress will never allow the court to expand. They packed the court with corrupt liars and they will stick with them. Just like they do with Trump, another felon.

The response should be civil disobedience. Refuse to do business with MAGA people as a religious commitment. Accept twice as many Black applicants to colleges. Don’t pay student loans. Doctors should perform 100,000 abortions.

Let’s get a hundred thousand people to hold a pray-in and surround the Supreme Court next fall and prevent them from doing any more damage. They are corrupt ideologues who have invented their own laws of white, Christian supremacy.

Expand full comment

If the Democrats win the Senate and House next time, the opportunity would be available as long as the Dems could muster 60 senators in favor. The problem could be the Democrats themselves. How many of them would favor expanding the Court? The Court has and will provide plenty of incentive to increase the number of justices.

Expand full comment

Surely the present rampage is enough to persuade anyone to expand the Court? "Justice" has become a hollow title.

Expand full comment

🦾

Expand full comment

The radical right wants a caste system. They want a social order where they're at the top and everyone else has to serve them. Today's decisions bring us closer to that dystopian reality.

Expand full comment

What they want is very nearly what we already have: an oligarchy very much like the one they admire so much in Russia. Time to make sure your passport is up to date.

Expand full comment

I hear New Zealand is nice this time of year….[actually I’ve wanted to travel there since the late 60’s….hmmm…maybe next lifetime….]

Expand full comment

NZ is wet cold mess right now Barb. I did a video chat with a dear friend last night. Their seasons are the complete opposite of ours. Major flooding troubles on the north island. Another friend who visited NZ from Oregon got stranded in the north as the airport flooded.

Expand full comment

In southern Argentina in South America it was snowing in the far south. Their seasons are opposite of our seasons also.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I thought of that as I was typing! The cold and wet I’m used to living in Humboldt County…flooding not so much (at least recently)!!!!

Expand full comment

New Zealand is SUPERB even when it's a wet cold mess with maybe an earthquake.

Expand full comment

Back in the late 60’s there was a fellow high school student (had graduated) a couple of years ahead of me (was part of a group of friends) & he crewed on a sailboat that won a long race—if I recall it was from CA to Hawaii. As a reward the boats owner paid for the crew to sail the south seas for fun. They stopped in NZ and this fellow was smitten. He ended up staying for a number of years and got a job at a school teaching math. He came back and we all got together and he told us about NZ and shared a slide show of the many pics he took. That got me interested & then my granny went there via ocean liner & did a number of excursions at a couple of ports in the 60’s as well and came back very impressed with the country. Then a few yeas later my then husband and I (we married very young) were back in our hometown visiting his folks when we gave a ride to a couple of hitchhikers…it turns out they were New Zealanders hitching through the states….we brought them to his folks house and hosted them for a few days (food & shelter)…and had a heartfelt invitation to come visit them in NZ someday….sure wish we could have!!!

Expand full comment

That brought a smile to my face. Yes, extraordinary beauty, warmth and generosity. I spent six months there, took my little car with me on the boat, worked three months in an office in Auckland, working Friday nights washing dishes in a big restaurant. Bought a very small canvas tent from an army disposals store, camped around South Island, picked hops, and back to Australia. Equally smitten. If it hadn't been for Paris, it would have been NZ. I've driven it north, south, east and west, from Cape Reinga to The Bluff. Have lifelong friends there.

Expand full comment