Sunday, July 02, 2023

Watch The Donut 🍩

Not the hole.

To begin with, this is some Donald Trump level “LOCK ‘EM UP!” shit.
Yeah, that’s still a thing with them.

When the dissent in 303 Creative noted that the plaintiff had never created a wedding website but sued anyway, that was background to the argument that “expressive content” was not an exception to public accommodations law. The plaintiff argued “expressive content “ gave her grounds to seek constitutional protection in the face of statutory law. The dissent is arguing that legal issue, not the question of standing. It’s a nuance perhaps only a lawyer can appreciate, but the facts here don’t raise a standing issue. The legal issue is whether “expressive content” carves out an exception to settled public accommodations jurisprudence. The majority, following in the footsteps of Dobbs, says: “Sure, why not? We like that outcome, and we’re the Supreme Court, bitches!”

That surge of confidence you felt after Allen v Mulligan? The Supreme Court just took a shotgun to your balloon. 303 Creative is such a radical departure from precedent it might as well be the palimpsest to Dobbs. And Allen might as well have come from a different court altogether.
Consider it the bone the majority threw to its critics so it could go back to taking a wrecking ball to whatever law and precedent it doesn’t like. A feint for the legitimacy they are busily shredding everywhere else.

And Twitter wants to chase the Trump shit of “Fuck the law! We’re pissed off and somebody should pay!”? Fuck that. Might as well say we’ll let ‘em get away with it while we engage in public petulant childishness. “Well, they get to do it! It’s not fair that we can’t!”

Grow up. The problem here is the trampling of public accommodations law, and the hole the Court just blew in the Civil Rights Act. That ship is taking on water and you want to complain to the captain about how the steward didn’t put enough sugar in your tea. 303 Creative is a trampling of precedent second only to Dobbs which raises “creative expression” (whatever the hell that is) to the level of Hobby Lobby’s “sincere religious belief” (whatever the hell that is. And I say that sincerely, since courts are not allowed to inquire. I expect the same will be true for “creative expression,” which somehow is speech and not conduct, and so constitutionally protected, although prejudice against protected classes of persons is not. Really, take the time to read the dissent in 303 Creative, and stop this stupid jabbering. You’re chasing the wrong damned car.)

This is a very bad legal decision. The problems with it are not the ones being talked about on Twitter because those aren’t even problems at all. The Court will probably continue to carve out a little sliver of legal protection for race on some basis in some cases, but that’s not the comfort you think it is. At best it’s just a fig leaf for the other damage they’re doing. All of the VRA was based on correcting the sins of racism allowed even in the face of the 15th Amendment, and Allen just barely leaves that law with anything to do. Hooray? And when the Court sees a problem with racism, or how it sees that problem, is the real issue still facing this nation. The rollback of the legal progress since 1954 is proceeding apace.

Now the CRA is under assault, and tout le Twitter is complaining about how uncouth the plaintiff is.

Let me put it this way: in 370 days  the Supreme Court has trashed precedent in abortion law and affirmative action law (the latter, if you didn’t know, began in 1961 with an executive order by John Kennedy). And now public accommodations law precedent is swept aside like it never existed. And you want to complain about the application of an arcane legal doctrine you don’t even understand, and demand it be enforced by non-existent laws by government agencies with no such authority? Who are you, Gym Jordan and Jimmy Comey?

I’ll retire to Bedlam…
at

1 comment:

  1. The Thought Criminal8:16 AM

    The Roberts Court is trying to bring back American apartheid, I've come to the conclusion it may actually be worse than the Taney Court of the 1850s. They overturned less sacrifice and struggle than Roberts and his thugs are doing. White supremacy is America's long standing and politically powerful indigenous form of fascism, and it doesn't just cover race. This ruling proves its penumbra covers the large majority of Americans.

    ReplyDelete