THIS UPDATE just in to the following story that I was ready to post.
In my “non-lawyer” opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court should reverse itself, or pull back on the case discussed below that is obviously a bogus case from all I have read and now widely reported on.
This update from THE HILL and it clearly shows that the
Supreme Court was duped:
“Man
denies making request cited in landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ case”
Highlights from this
update:
As website
designer Lorie Smith battled Colorado’s public accommodation law, she
claimed that one day after filing her lawsuit, a man requested she design a
website for his upcoming same-sex marriage. But the man, identified in the
request as “Stewart,” says he has been married to a woman for more than a
decade and never submitted the inquiry.
The Supreme Court handed Smith a victory in her pre-enforcement lawsuit Friday (June 30) ruling along ideological lines (6-3) that she had the right to refuse to offer to same-sex couples the same services she was providing opposite-sex couples.
Colorado argued that Smith expanding her business to opposite-sex couples meant
she had to accept same-sex clients.
Noteworthy: The justices’ opinions made no reference to the supposed request, and Smith only briefly mentioned it in filings at the Supreme Court.
But
the development has raised new scrutiny of Smith and her conservative lawyers’
years-long effort to claw back LGBTQ+ protections, as they had cited the
request on multiple occasions in the lower courts while asserting that she had
authority to challenge Colorado’s law.
The man, Stewart, agreed to be interviewed by The Hill on
the condition that his last name not be used said: “I’m just really
disappointed in the ongoing and sustained attacks on the LGBTQ community in
this country, and I’m also disappointed and concerned about the lack of rigor
that’s been shown by the lawyers in this case.”
He continued: “There’s some evidence there which is easily
refutable and easily proven to be incorrect and has been in the case filings
for the last five plus years. So it’s concerning that that could make it all
the way to the Supreme Court without anybody checking.”
Two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge on a CO appeals court panel agreed that Smith had authority to bring her lawsuit regardless of the request.
That lower court went on to uphold
Colorado’s law as constitutional in a divided ruling, leading Smith to appeal
to the Supreme Court.
------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGIAL POST NOW
FOLLOWS BELOW:
From ESQUIRE with this big bogus/fake/false case:
1. The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door a Little Wider for
Legally-Sanctioned Anti-LGBTQ+ Bigotry
On Friday (June 30) in the
case of 303 Creative v. Elenis (case in COLORADO), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that
a website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to create a website
for a same-sex wedding between two men named Stewart and Mike.
Everyone presumed
that the principals in the case actually existed. But, the
case was not real it was presumptuous (it was a what if, or maybe, sort of a
future case – not a real actual one).
Yes, that Stewart and his
full name was phone number, email address, and website were on the inquiry
form.
But he never sent the form and he said: “I am a man married to a
woman with a child. If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of
supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that. I wouldn’t
want anybody to make me a wedding website why would I? I’m not really sure
where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court
filing document.”
The case has impressive evidence that somebody invented the plaintiffs in a case with huge ramifications for millions of Americans. The Supreme Court ended its term as an intolerable grotesque of judicial activism concocted out of absurd history, bad law, and the 1980 Republican platform.
This carefully manufactured
6-3 conservative majority opened the door a little wider for legally
sanctioned, anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry.
My 2 Cents: This case and
ruling as I said right up front is to cause the court to toss the case and to
sanction the CO lower court and anyone else involved in this bogus filing.
Just also just in and related to my above hunch:
Legal scholars pushed back on former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal's
claim that the Supreme Court may be compelled to reexamine a recent case after
evidence surfaced that the claim at the heart of the case may have been
fabricated.
In the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by Lorie Smith, the graphic artist cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her, according to the AP.
But Smith cited a man
named Stewart in 2017 court documents including a website service request from
him, which detailed his phone number and email address. When Melissa Gira
Grant, a writer for The New Republic, contacted Stewart, he said that no such
thing had happened. Stewart told the outlet that he was not gay, has been
married to a woman for 15 years and is a web designer himself.
Katyal suggested that the Supreme Court should revisit the ruling given saying on MSNBC: “The Supreme Court has a procedure to seek a rehearing, so to say: Hey Supreme Court, there's a new fact that emerged and we need you to revisit your ruling,” so that's possible. The Supreme Court can also on its own ask for a briefing on this new question on whether this case is made up.”
He continued: “Conservatives right now are defending the decision saying that Roe v. Wade, Roe wasn't pregnant at the time of the decision and that's different. Roe was pregnant at the time of the filing of the complaint so she was having the exact problem that she was trying to remedy, namely seeking an abortion because she was pregnant. Here, this web designer has never once done a website for an LGBT couple. It's the exact opposite situation it's totally hypothetical and made up. I think the Colorado attorney general should consider bringing a rehearing petition before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Legal scholars have pushed back on Katyal's argument. Read the full SALON article to see who is pushing back. I said the court should reverse itself originally as my hunch – now we need to wait and see.
It is truly a disgrace for one simple reason in my view (again my non-lawyer view) there was no standing for the web designer, Lorie Smith, to reach the USSC because she had no case.
This case ruling is shameful and adds to the low opinion rating of this super majority conservative-leaning court.
I say shame on the high court (again). Let’s hope they do the things I suggested above, but, they probably will not since they are too arrogant proud to do what is right.
Neal Katyal is 100% correct and hopefully the court will do what is right and just. We shall see.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment