Disclaimer: I am not the original owner or creator of this content. The source account is listed below.

Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.

Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent.

– Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent to the decision by the Republican majority on the US Supreme Court in the 303 CREATIVE LLC et al. v. ELENIS et al. case which allows certain businesses to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. Via the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sotomayor dissents after SCOTUS underlines protections for LGBTQ+ people: 'a sad day in American constitutional law'

Elections have consequences. Voting for idiotic third parties which have ZERO chance of electing a president gave us George W. Bush (who appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito) and Donald Trump (who appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett). Republicans have Ralph Nader and Jill Stein to thank for the 21st century legal lurch to the far right in the US.

Whatever you think of Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, the worst judge either of them would have appointed would have been exponentially better than the best judge appointed by Bush or Trump.

You are not a true progressive if your actions (or inactions) help to elect rightwing presidents who then appoint rightwing SCOTUS justices who sit on the court for life.

Good to know that every Republican and every Conservative Christian/Catholic supports raped children giving birth to children. There is a special place in hell for you, Satan just added a new layer.

Her vs The Court

Me with the US rn or honestly any other time.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Officially Sworn in to Serve as Justice on U.S. Supreme Court

Ketanji Brown Jackson Officially Sworn in to Serve as Justice on U.S. Supreme Court

According to the New York Times, just after noon today, Ketanji Brown Jackson took the judicial oath, becoming the first Black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Justice Jackson, 51, was confirmed in April, when the Senate voted 53 to 47 on her nomination. She has replaced Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, who she once clerked for. Breyer stepped down at the conclusion of the court’s…

View On WordPress

Trump SCOTUS limits the ability of people to use their Miranda Rights

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.  

It was a really, really good political news day today in the US (4/4/23)

For anyone who hasn't heard, not only did Trump get arrested, but also:

-We found out that the legal case against him in this prosecution (stormy daniels hush money case) is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than people had speculated. Like, wow do they have receipts.

-In fact, the evidence was so entirely there that the new question on prime time news (well, at least on msnbc lol) is "Hey, why didn't the federal courts prosecute him for this already???)

-Trump FAILED UTTERLY in his attempts to rally mass protests and demands for "death and destruction" if he was arrested. There was no violence at the arrest at all, and as for Trump supporters? They failed to show up in any kind of numbers--reportedly only about a hundred people were protesting the arrest

-We (aka Judge Janet Protasiewicz) WON what is widely considered to be the most consequential election of 2023, a Wisconsin state supreme court election that handed control of the state supreme court to the left

-Because of that election win, it is now extremely likely that abortion will be legal in Wisconsin, and that Wisconsin won't be able to throw out electors in the 2024 presidential election

-ALSO bc of this, Wisconsin, the most gerrymandered state in the country, will probably get nonpartisan, accurate maps, which COULD FLIP THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in 2024

-In Chicago, Brandon Johnson, union organizer and former teacher, won the election for mayor, in a decisive win progressives, esp for meaningful criminal justice reform and investment in mental health (whereas the other guy was campaigning on hiring hundreds of new cops and being super tough on crime)

No thoughts just this page from the onions amicus curiae brief

The Supreme Court hears the mifepristone case Tuesday. Here's what's at stake : Shots - Health News https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/25/1240282129/mifepristone-supreme-court-fda-medication-abortion-explainer

Join us now in calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to end the ongoing, daily mass murder of abortion.

"The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status," Sotomayor added in the dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor added that the ruling conveyed a message that "we live in a society with social castes," and warned that the underpinning logic of the decision could extend beyond sexual orientation or gender identity.

"The decision threatens to ... allow the exclusion of other groups from many services. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example," she added.