SCOTUS rules website designer does not have to design for a gay couple.

[Revoltingest]

That response was very productive. In the sense that you produced a response.

Observant you are.

 

[Orbit]

What was a lie?

The man she named in the court papers was not gay and never asked for a website.

 

[Revoltingest]

The man she named in the court papers was not gay and never asked for a website.

OK.

We should blame mis-use of the tool, not the
tool itself.
For me, a case being hypothetical isn't a concern.
It would be great if the court changes some day,
& hypothetical cases expand the right to abortion,
property rights, the right to sue cops, etc.

 

[fantome profane]

For me, a case being hypothetical isn't a concern.

Just want to make sure this point is extremely clear. It is not that the case was "hypothetical". They went into the court openly claiming the case was "hypothetical", but they still had to provide evidence. They had to provide evidence to support their supposition that this "hypothetical" was likely to occur.

And the evidence they provided was false. Not "hypothetical", it was a lie. Presenting false information to a court is a crime, and should certainly be enough to get the case dismissed, and the lawyer disbarred.

It would be great if the court changes some day,
& hypothetical cases expand the right to abortion,
property rights, the right to sue cops, etc.

But there is no need to bring "hypothetical" cases for those issues, there are thousands of real cases, cases there real people have suffered real harm from restrictive abortion laws, real cases where real people have suffered real harm at the hands of real police.

If we lived in a fantasy world, (like the woman who brought this case), where we could not find a real example of police misconduct, then I would not want a case brought before the Supreme Court.

 

[Copernicus]

Just want to make sure this point is extremely clear. It is not that the case was "hypothetical". They went into the court openly claiming the case was "hypothetical", but they still had to provide evidence. They had to provide evidence to support their supposition that this "hypothetical" was likely to occur.

And the evidence they provided was false. Not "hypothetical", it was a lie. Presenting false information to a court is a crime, and should certainly be enough to get the case dismissed, and the lawyer disbarred.



But there is no need to bring "hypothetical" cases for those issues, there are thousands of real cases, cases there real people have suffered real harm from restrictive abortion laws, real cases where real people have suffered real harm at the hands of real police.

If we lived in a fantasy world, (like the woman who brought this case), where we could not find a real example of police misconduct, then I would not want a case brought before the Supreme Court.

And, more importantly, federal courts are constitutionally prohibited from ruling on hypothetical cases, which are known as "advisory opinions".

A controversy is an actual dispute, which refers to one of the underlying requirements to obtain jurisdiction in federal court. U.S Constitution, Article III, section 2, in setting out the powers of the Federal judiciary, grants federal courts the power to hear both certain “cases” and certain “controversies.”

In framing judicial authority these words also represent limits. For example, the federal courts do not, under Article III, have the power to resolve legal questions that do not arise out of an actual dispute between real parties because no controversy exists. This limit on hearing collusive suits is known as the ban on issuing advisory opinions.

I don't know whether the fake case here was actually concocted in order to get around the constitutional prohibition. In principle, the web designer did not have standing to bring the case, but she claims (through her lawyer) that she believed the request to be valid and that she somehow was prevented by the Colorado antidiscrimination law from verifying that the client making the request was real. She felt that even contacting the requester would be interpreted by the state as discriminatory behavior.

I don't actually believe her, and I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was a deliberate scam just to be able to claim standing to bring the case to a federal court. But I do believe that the Supreme Court is not going to reverse its decision because of the stink arising from this case. Those six justices wanted to use this ruling to strike a blow at a state law that they were ideologically opposed to. Theoretically, they don't have legislative or executive powers to change the law, but creatively reinterpreting the Constitution is a power that they do have.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just want to make sure this point is extremely clear. It is not that the case was "hypothetical". They went into the court openly claiming the case was "hypothetical", but they still had to provide evidence. They had to provide evidence to support their supposition that this "hypothetical" was likely to occur.

What in the Constitution or law requires this?

And the evidence they provided was false. Not "hypothetical", it was a lie. Presenting false information to a court is a crime, and should certainly be enough to get the case dismissed, and the lawyer disbarred.

If it weren't a "lie", would this make any difference?

But there is no need to bring "hypothetical" cases for those issues, there are thousands of real cases, cases there real people have suffered real harm from restrictive abortion laws, real cases where real people have suffered real harm at the hands of real police.

SCOTUS decided that this case deserved
attention, despite many other cases
competing to be heard.

If we lived in a fantasy world, (like the woman who brought this case), where we could not find a real example of police misconduct, then I would not want a case brought before the Supreme Court.

The court doesn't share your preferences.
Nor do they care for mine. But it is what it
is, & without their violating the Constitution,
not much can be done. Criminy, even when
they do violate it, they get away with it.