JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:i'd like to know how narrow the ruling was (i.e. can they refuse to serve completely? is it ok to say 'i wont make you a cake but ill do cupcakes or whatever' like this shop did'?)

also it was 7-2 (ginsburg, sotomayor obv)

apparently it's narrow; they basically can go appeal the Colorado decision again and this time Colorado is supposed to factor in 'sincere religious beliefs'

but wouldn't that then mean that the cake is baked on this, so to speak? they'll have to then affirm they can deny service because the Bible says so

im seeing its not narrow

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 2399085570

(lolololol)

our 46th president, folks

can't wait until his reign starts in 2033

I just read the syllabus, and I don't necessarily disagree with the remand. I think the free speech on baked good argument stupid, but valid when drawn out. Seems like there was not a lot of agreement on this case outside of the narrow remand (several concurring opinions and RBG's dissent). I always tell myself I'll read this cases, but I'll probably just read a breakdown on SCOTUSblog or something.

I was in NYC over the weekend. Walking through Times Square I saw a guy with bad blond hair in a poorly fitting suit with a tie tied too long yelling make America great again. I did need to check to see if it was actually not the president. Bad Ironman seemed to think it was since he was shouting 'give the president some respect'.

I read RBJ's dissent, and unpredictably, found it persuasive - it was only 7 pages (with healthy footnotes in places) so it wasn't too bad. The opinion itself is only 18, so now I feel like I owe it to myself to read that too.

slugsrbad wrote:I just read the syllabus, and I don't necessarily disagree with the remand. I think the free speech on baked good argument stupid, but valid when drawn out. Seems like there was not a lot of agreement on this case outside of the narrow remand (several concurring opinions and RBG's dissent). I always tell myself I'll read this cases, but I'll probably just read a breakdown on SCOTUSblog or something.

yeah i think the only ones ive read 'recently' are obergefell and the obamacare ones. they're dense but i kind of liked reading them in my couple of law classes.

slugsrbad wrote:I read RBJ's dissent, and unpredictably, found it persuasive - it was only 7 pages (with healthy footnotes in places) so it wasn't too bad. The opinion itself is only 18, so now I feel like I owe it to myself to read that too.

maybe once moz becomes governor he'll put you on SCOPA

More Pruitt problems: He used EPA staff to run errands for him. Here is the one you really want to know about - he sent a staffer out to try to buy a used mattress for him from the Trump International Hotel, D.C.

somewhere between the pandering nature (probably heard they were the best from the boss), and the idea of a used hotel mattress is ew...

Happy Pride Month!

Bucky wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:I read RBJ's dissent, and unpredictably, found it persuasive - it was only 7 pages (with healthy footnotes in places) so it wasn't too bad. The opinion itself is only 18, so now I feel like I owe it to myself to read that too.

maybe once moz becomes governor he'll put you on SCOPA

I promise to be wise enough to use my smartphone for porn and not to email it using my state email address.

pacino wrote:Cake Shop wins, they can argue that they can discriminate against a gay person because their religion mandates it:

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."

no Janus decision

If government was not in the marriage business, and left marriage decisions to religious institutions, this would be a lot easier to adjudicate. Because then everything related to marriage could be defined as being religious, versus a weird mix of religious and government endorsed rights. As it stands now, the SC really trying to thread a needle. Is baking a personalized wedding cake a pure business service that they cannot withhold, or part of a religious service that one can abstain from providing? I don't envy the SC here, and so I can appreciate why they'd admonish the Commission for their partiality while not rubber-stamping these kinds of religious objections.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Cake Shop wins, they can argue that they can discriminate against a gay person because their religion mandates it:

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."

no Janus decision

If government was not in the marriage business, and left marriage decisions to religious institutions, this would be a lot easier to adjudicate. Because then everything related to marriage could be defined as being religious, versus a weird mix of religious and government endorsed rights. As it stands now, the SC really trying to thread a needle. Is baking a personalized wedding cake a pure business service that they cannot withhold, or part of a religious service that one can abstain from providing? I don't envy the SC here, and so I can appreciate why they'd admonish the Commission for their partiality while not rubber-stamping these kinds of religious objections.

Yea, but the Commission was one of several layers that ruled against the bakeshop. Even if the comments by the Commission should have been admonished, I don't know if it raises to the level of prejudice that made a reversal necessary.

@gtconway3d

And if this were true, you’d think this conservative Republican-controlled Department of Justice would revoke or decline to utilize the Special Counsel regulations. But it hasn’t.

This in response to the 'unconstitutional ' special counsel (maybe it is that "special council" that is unc). What is Mr. KACs game?

A sort of scary tale of the paper's owner and editor controlling content for political spin.

One episode the paper's owner asked that the term “vulgar language” be removed from the first paragraph of an AP story about Trump’s vulgar language. the crux of the article is centered around the paper spiking Trump related political cartoons, and that the editor penned a positive piece about Shithole Countries in support of Don.

Also there is a story about foreign born adopted children who were 18 or older in 2000 that now face deportation to a country they never knew. Paperwork errors, and/or flaws in the the adoption process have had several people rounded up as illegals and sent packing.

Lets face it, that is just basic evil.

lol - had to ask sad sarah 3 or 4 times the same question to get an answer. Question: Does the president think he is above the law? Answer: he has don't nothing wrong, constitution is clear, he has done nothing wrong, no one is above the law.

Sarah also thinks that Trump makes himself available to the press! But the press writes about things that the people do not care about. He tweets to let people know the truth directly.

Slowhand wrote:She never had any kidney issues. She was never in a "hospital". She is being held in an undisclosed facility because she knows too much and has threatened to talk.

I think the first part might be true. I think she wants out of the marriage and her and Barron are leaving. That's why even Tiffany attended the family trip to Camp David this week. Trump had to tell the family and it will come out shortly (or dribble out slowly because they never do anything the right way).

That trip without her looked like a family breaking up to me. Hopefully she'll also tell Mueller everything she knows.

JFLNYC wrote:

traderdave wrote:Is anybody giving odds as to whether or not Trump relinquishes the WH should he lose in 2020?

You’re assuming he allows an election.

he's already said that dems will interfere with the election, which I take it to mean that Trump will because he's a non-stop projection machine

thephan wrote:lol - had to ask sad sarah 3 or 4 times the same question to get an answer. Question: Does the president think he is above the law? Answer: he has don't nothing wrong, constitution is clear, he has done nothing wrong, no one is above the law.

Sarah also thinks that Trump makes himself available to the press! But the press writes about things that the people do not care about. He tweets to let people know the truth directly.

He tweets the "truth" as he sees it. This is all a fucking game to these people; meanwhile, there are real life consequences for us common folk.

Important question- does anyone here know where I can get an old used mattress from a Trump hotel?

The Sarge wrote:Important question- does anyone here know where I can get an old used mattress from a Trump hotel?

Did Pruitt want one with or without stains? Actually I expect that he heard that there is cash stuffed in the mattresses as bribes and was hopeful.