As always, you have explained a very complicated situation so I can understand it. And it's terrifying. This court is moving into dangerous territory... and they seem to be acting so boldly, there is no stopping them. It's very disheartening. 😳
It’s different because they were and are still mad about the first black Supreme Court justice just like they were the first black president. He was the original “activist” they continued to complain about, as if he had no legitimacy, just his “activism”. Everything they’ve done and said since then is to create permission structures to do exactly what they are doing now. Going far and beyond what Marshall’s court did to rip out all of his court’s signature achievements.
I've made these two comments before, ad nauseum actually, and probably on your site. But it seems to me that
For the loan case, MOHELO would lose fees for administering ANY loan that was paid off. Why does it matter HOW it was paid off? Would Missouri be able to sue a relative that paid off a kid's loan because they would then lose administrative fees? Suppose Soros decided to pay off every federal loan in Missouri? Could they sue Soros on that grounds? (I'd bet they'd love to). Losing fees because you no longer have the need to earn them isn't exactly an injury.
For the 303 Creative case: There is absolutely NOTHING that says she couldn't describe her website as one that "celebrated" traditional Christian marriage values. All she was prohibited from doing was "expressing" an intent to actively discriminate. In the Photo business hypothetical they could easily say that their photos "celebrated" the vision of a White America.
It makes me think that there’s no difference then that a small business should be able to sue a large company (Walmart or similar) for putting them out of business because “they took the profits/fees” away from them. I think small busy need to start during on these grounds. Then we’ll see what ‘they’ say about it.
There are causes of action in unfair competition that would cover this. This is more akin to the following: You have a small patch of lawn and a lawn service comes to mow it. No contract for any period of time, like for a year, just a fee for the times they DO come. Then you decide to take out the lawn and put in a patio. Nothing left to mow. Is the lawn service "injured" by not having to mow your lawn anymore? Not in any cause of action sense. They just lost business because, well, things change. (if you HAD agreed to a year contract, not expired, they could sue you for lost profits, but that's a different situation.)
Further, I've read that MOHELO would have nothing to do this because THEY didn't think they were injured--plenty of work they could take on instead, including administering NEW loans, with longer duration than ones that had been around and being paid for a while--or for that matter, not being paid so they have to go after the borrower.
This is more proof that the last 3 justices weren’t just appointed but “hired” as ideologues to not only decide cases in a way that favors their sponsors ideals (Freedom Caucus, Federalist Society) but to accept cultural bellwether cases whether or not the standards for harm have been met. They’re making statements, not interpreting law. John Roberts blows wherever the wind goes (same direction as Thomas & Alito I’d bet), that much is plain. He has completely lost any control and meaningful place as Chief Justice. Even those without law degrees can see the arc of justice bends toward rich, favored corporate conservatives in America. Those who fund their lavish lives, IOW.
I had been wondering about the issue of standing in the 303 Creative case. Thank you for the clear explanation! And yes, lead counsel Erin Hawley of the Federalist Society has been busy; she was instrumental in last year's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, too.
Most notable in both the "Students..." and "303creative" opinions is that much of the usual politesse in the dissents has been abandoned because of the egregiousness of the majority's reasoning, and it's no longer "Nothing personal, it's strictly business" with the 3-Justice minority, it's now very personal, with Justice Jackson really schooling CJ Roberts in no uncertain terms. She and J Sotomayor have clearly had enough of crap opinion-writing and ex cathedra sniping from Alito and Thomas, and are really laying into the majority, proprieties be damned...good on them!
The network of radical Christians created by Leonard Leo and his donors is working hard to undermine every aspect of democracy that doesn’t align with a neo-Christian (white and mostly facist) design. These cases are piling up and each one is another nail in the coffin undermining the rights of our majority. Jay, maybe we could get you on the Supreme Court? Seems as though your understanding outpaces a more than a few of those bad apples. Oh, btw, people—you can send an email letter to the Court expressing your displeasure. I did yesterday and it felt good to say my piece.
You could definitely add Mitch McConnell as one of the driving forces behind all this, as became apparent with Garland's nomination to SCOTUS, right on through to the Handmaiden. Interestingly, now that this batch of deranged raccoons have power in the judiciary, McConnell seems to be backing off on the Senate races they will fight for. That is an interesting message. Michigan and Wisconsin are not apparently worth the effort. But Sherrod Brown is in for a tough fight.
And Mitch’s #1 goal in life was always to eradicate abortion. Once he helped accomplish that he no doubt hungered (and assisted) in retracting more rights from more people. Because these are greedy men. It reinforced their need to control(particularly women). They thirst for more and more money, then more and more power.
Oh my goodness, curiouser and curiouser! Your explanation is so clear (with some chuckles thrown in) and I am so thankful to have that understanding. I can’t wait to see what you say about what shouId be done because it feels like THERES NOTHING we can do (and I don’t normally go into caps!) Again, thank you for all you do to inform your followers, especially those of us that aren’t trained in law or politics.
Thank you for putting this is terms that we can all understand. I've never been more worried about our future than now...after counting on a rational Supreme Court my whole life, these latest decision have shattered my confidence in SCOTUS.
It makes me really mad that a case got all the way to the SC because somebody "might" get hurt if someone "maybe" asks them to design a website someday. A website that they have never done before.
Let's say for instance that a gay couple tries to hire Lorie to do a wedding website. Unbeknownst to them, she is a virulently homophobic. All she has to say to them is, "I'm so sorry but I'm completely booked and can't take on any more work right now." The couple would find go and someone else. End of story.
But no. Lorie wants to be able to say to them, "I will never take on a job from a homosexual couple. It is against all my beliefs. You are sinful and are going to Hell. I refuse to compromise my beliefs." She doesn't just want to refuse their business, she wants to be able to preach at them as well.
I actually had been wondering how a "bogus" case made it's way to the SC and got a ruling. Thank you for the explanation.
Any time I see these cases where a small business "doesn't want to" make cakes or websites or whatever for persons of the LGBTQ community I often wonder why they don't use a more subtle approach such as making a quote so outrageously expensive nobody would go for it or simply turning down business as "I'm too busy" or some other valid excuse. Or, as someone else has mentioned, put wording on your site such as "traditional Christian values" which screams to the community "don't bother". In my mind once you sue you run the risk of doing more "harm" to your business by putting yourself in the spotlight as a bigot. In her case, she doesn't have actual clients to rely on, only hypothetical gay clients (which have now gone elsewhere). I mean I suppose that can go both ways but in my mind you lose more business than you gain. Though, especially in this case, the point really is to inflict as much harm as possible to the rights of those you are "afraid" of.
Best take on standing in the two cases that I’ve seen, particularly the 303.
Also unaddressed in 303 was fictive nature of the person, a limited liability company. Taken as precedent that non-natural persons have First Amendment rights (Citizens United, etc.) and may exercise those rights under the guise of religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby) does it also follow that they may vicariously adopt the fears of their management or beneficial owners? Unincorporated associations of natural persons have beliefs and feelings that naturally follow the consensus of their members, who are free to withdraw. Persons existing by reason of a grant of existence by public authority differ. Their modalities of operation and decision making are set by law and governing documents. Failure to observe the requisite corporate formalities can “pierce the corporate veil” and deprive an entity of its bestowed rights and privileges including protection of its owners from civil liability. So far as I know, no such creature of the state also protects the sensibilities of the owners.
The owner says “I fear that the legal entity may face the possibility of civil liability” the answer is “them the breaks, your protection extends to the protection of your personal assets from obligations of that entity and no further and that’s the deal you signed up for.” A state charter does not confer protection from fretting about the consequences about risks undertaken in the course of business.
If we are going fully to endow corporate bodies themselves with human emotions and apprehensions formed independently from corporate governance procedures what is the burden of showing? Is it sufficient only to show that the fear is objectively well founded, relieving any necessity of demonstrating that the fear is also bona fide?
I could go on, but the Court’s stance in 303 is a slippery slope in all directions, just like the peak of Mt. Everest.
Thank you for this explanation. It would seem this “supreme” court needs supervision!! Should there be a “Supremer Supreme Court”??? Sarcasm aside, what a horrible situation when those whose job is to safe guard the constitution defiles it instead!
As always, you have explained a very complicated situation so I can understand it. And it's terrifying. This court is moving into dangerous territory... and they seem to be acting so boldly, there is no stopping them. It's very disheartening. 😳
I believe we can stop them. But it will take all hands on deck in the coming elections.
I think you’re in the wrong conversation 🙄
Anyone remember when Conservatives used to rant and rave about activist Judges? The irony- it burns.
It's different when it's your own ...
It’s different because they were and are still mad about the first black Supreme Court justice just like they were the first black president. He was the original “activist” they continued to complain about, as if he had no legitimacy, just his “activism”. Everything they’ve done and said since then is to create permission structures to do exactly what they are doing now. Going far and beyond what Marshall’s court did to rip out all of his court’s signature achievements.
I've made these two comments before, ad nauseum actually, and probably on your site. But it seems to me that
For the loan case, MOHELO would lose fees for administering ANY loan that was paid off. Why does it matter HOW it was paid off? Would Missouri be able to sue a relative that paid off a kid's loan because they would then lose administrative fees? Suppose Soros decided to pay off every federal loan in Missouri? Could they sue Soros on that grounds? (I'd bet they'd love to). Losing fees because you no longer have the need to earn them isn't exactly an injury.
For the 303 Creative case: There is absolutely NOTHING that says she couldn't describe her website as one that "celebrated" traditional Christian marriage values. All she was prohibited from doing was "expressing" an intent to actively discriminate. In the Photo business hypothetical they could easily say that their photos "celebrated" the vision of a White America.
Sure they'd lose business. Their choice.
I love the MOHELO example. I didn't really think about it that way but you are right.
It wasn't just an example. Loss of those fees was actually the "injury" that the court found the state, via its "agency," suffered.
Oh I know fees were the actual injury- I meant more your example of suing a relative of a kid because they paid off his loan thus losing the fees.
ah, indeed.
It makes me think that there’s no difference then that a small business should be able to sue a large company (Walmart or similar) for putting them out of business because “they took the profits/fees” away from them. I think small busy need to start during on these grounds. Then we’ll see what ‘they’ say about it.
There are causes of action in unfair competition that would cover this. This is more akin to the following: You have a small patch of lawn and a lawn service comes to mow it. No contract for any period of time, like for a year, just a fee for the times they DO come. Then you decide to take out the lawn and put in a patio. Nothing left to mow. Is the lawn service "injured" by not having to mow your lawn anymore? Not in any cause of action sense. They just lost business because, well, things change. (if you HAD agreed to a year contract, not expired, they could sue you for lost profits, but that's a different situation.)
Further, I've read that MOHELO would have nothing to do this because THEY didn't think they were injured--plenty of work they could take on instead, including administering NEW loans, with longer duration than ones that had been around and being paid for a while--or for that matter, not being paid so they have to go after the borrower.
Apologies on my spelling errors!!
This is more proof that the last 3 justices weren’t just appointed but “hired” as ideologues to not only decide cases in a way that favors their sponsors ideals (Freedom Caucus, Federalist Society) but to accept cultural bellwether cases whether or not the standards for harm have been met. They’re making statements, not interpreting law. John Roberts blows wherever the wind goes (same direction as Thomas & Alito I’d bet), that much is plain. He has completely lost any control and meaningful place as Chief Justice. Even those without law degrees can see the arc of justice bends toward rich, favored corporate conservatives in America. Those who fund their lavish lives, IOW.
Don't forget Garland being fired for the same job.
Yikes yes but a whole ‘nother diatribe would be needed on him, and any predecessors.
I had been wondering about the issue of standing in the 303 Creative case. Thank you for the clear explanation! And yes, lead counsel Erin Hawley of the Federalist Society has been busy; she was instrumental in last year's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, too.
Ginni and Erin, coup plotter and spouse of coup participant, their coup continues.
Most notable in both the "Students..." and "303creative" opinions is that much of the usual politesse in the dissents has been abandoned because of the egregiousness of the majority's reasoning, and it's no longer "Nothing personal, it's strictly business" with the 3-Justice minority, it's now very personal, with Justice Jackson really schooling CJ Roberts in no uncertain terms. She and J Sotomayor have clearly had enough of crap opinion-writing and ex cathedra sniping from Alito and Thomas, and are really laying into the majority, proprieties be damned...good on them!
It’s really quite extraordinary.
It's ironic a body would play so loosey-goosey with the very Constitution this Court is empaneled to interpret.
Add "and uphold" after interpret. :-)
The network of radical Christians created by Leonard Leo and his donors is working hard to undermine every aspect of democracy that doesn’t align with a neo-Christian (white and mostly facist) design. These cases are piling up and each one is another nail in the coffin undermining the rights of our majority. Jay, maybe we could get you on the Supreme Court? Seems as though your understanding outpaces a more than a few of those bad apples. Oh, btw, people—you can send an email letter to the Court expressing your displeasure. I did yesterday and it felt good to say my piece.
While I’m certified to appear before SCOTUS, I would not want to don the robes myself. My hat is off to the three liberals who can endure this.
I can understand. But I bet you would be great!
You could definitely add Mitch McConnell as one of the driving forces behind all this, as became apparent with Garland's nomination to SCOTUS, right on through to the Handmaiden. Interestingly, now that this batch of deranged raccoons have power in the judiciary, McConnell seems to be backing off on the Senate races they will fight for. That is an interesting message. Michigan and Wisconsin are not apparently worth the effort. But Sherrod Brown is in for a tough fight.
And Mitch’s #1 goal in life was always to eradicate abortion. Once he helped accomplish that he no doubt hungered (and assisted) in retracting more rights from more people. Because these are greedy men. It reinforced their need to control(particularly women). They thirst for more and more money, then more and more power.
Oh my goodness, curiouser and curiouser! Your explanation is so clear (with some chuckles thrown in) and I am so thankful to have that understanding. I can’t wait to see what you say about what shouId be done because it feels like THERES NOTHING we can do (and I don’t normally go into caps!) Again, thank you for all you do to inform your followers, especially those of us that aren’t trained in law or politics.
An excellent, thorough and frightening analysis, Jay.
Thank you for putting this is terms that we can all understand. I've never been more worried about our future than now...after counting on a rational Supreme Court my whole life, these latest decision have shattered my confidence in SCOTUS.
Seems weird to thank someone for something so completely depressing, but thank you.
It makes me really mad that a case got all the way to the SC because somebody "might" get hurt if someone "maybe" asks them to design a website someday. A website that they have never done before.
Let's say for instance that a gay couple tries to hire Lorie to do a wedding website. Unbeknownst to them, she is a virulently homophobic. All she has to say to them is, "I'm so sorry but I'm completely booked and can't take on any more work right now." The couple would find go and someone else. End of story.
But no. Lorie wants to be able to say to them, "I will never take on a job from a homosexual couple. It is against all my beliefs. You are sinful and are going to Hell. I refuse to compromise my beliefs." She doesn't just want to refuse their business, she wants to be able to preach at them as well.
I actually had been wondering how a "bogus" case made it's way to the SC and got a ruling. Thank you for the explanation.
Any time I see these cases where a small business "doesn't want to" make cakes or websites or whatever for persons of the LGBTQ community I often wonder why they don't use a more subtle approach such as making a quote so outrageously expensive nobody would go for it or simply turning down business as "I'm too busy" or some other valid excuse. Or, as someone else has mentioned, put wording on your site such as "traditional Christian values" which screams to the community "don't bother". In my mind once you sue you run the risk of doing more "harm" to your business by putting yourself in the spotlight as a bigot. In her case, she doesn't have actual clients to rely on, only hypothetical gay clients (which have now gone elsewhere). I mean I suppose that can go both ways but in my mind you lose more business than you gain. Though, especially in this case, the point really is to inflict as much harm as possible to the rights of those you are "afraid" of.
Best take on standing in the two cases that I’ve seen, particularly the 303.
Also unaddressed in 303 was fictive nature of the person, a limited liability company. Taken as precedent that non-natural persons have First Amendment rights (Citizens United, etc.) and may exercise those rights under the guise of religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby) does it also follow that they may vicariously adopt the fears of their management or beneficial owners? Unincorporated associations of natural persons have beliefs and feelings that naturally follow the consensus of their members, who are free to withdraw. Persons existing by reason of a grant of existence by public authority differ. Their modalities of operation and decision making are set by law and governing documents. Failure to observe the requisite corporate formalities can “pierce the corporate veil” and deprive an entity of its bestowed rights and privileges including protection of its owners from civil liability. So far as I know, no such creature of the state also protects the sensibilities of the owners.
The owner says “I fear that the legal entity may face the possibility of civil liability” the answer is “them the breaks, your protection extends to the protection of your personal assets from obligations of that entity and no further and that’s the deal you signed up for.” A state charter does not confer protection from fretting about the consequences about risks undertaken in the course of business.
If we are going fully to endow corporate bodies themselves with human emotions and apprehensions formed independently from corporate governance procedures what is the burden of showing? Is it sufficient only to show that the fear is objectively well founded, relieving any necessity of demonstrating that the fear is also bona fide?
I could go on, but the Court’s stance in 303 is a slippery slope in all directions, just like the peak of Mt. Everest.
Thank you for this explanation. It would seem this “supreme” court needs supervision!! Should there be a “Supremer Supreme Court”??? Sarcasm aside, what a horrible situation when those whose job is to safe guard the constitution defiles it instead!