"Just so you know, the Supreme Court just sanctioned discrimination against LGBTQ people based on a fake case. Lorie Smith and ADF invented a gay couple to discriminate against and the Supreme Court said sure why not. On the last goddamn day of Pride."

~ Imani Gandy

https://www.alternet.org/lorie-smith/

'Nuclear hypocrisy': Legal experts stunned by SCOTUS’ 'weird' ruling in LGBTQ rights case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with a Christian web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex weddings – and legal experts are stunned.The justices voted 6-3 in favor of Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, who argued that the First Amendment entitled her to a religious exemption fr...

Alternet.org
@wdlindsy Doesn’t anyone have the responsibility to vet these cases before they are brought before the court?
Or do we rely on the ethics of the legal profession?
@bouriquet I feel sure the Supreme Court would say it vets cases it chooses. What that actually means may be different from what many of is assume a sound vetting process is about.
@wdlindsy
Clearly this case was decided on hearsay evidence, rather than facts.
@gdinwiddie My conclusion is that it was pre-decided and was placed on the docket for that very reason. Evidence of any kind did not matter. The right-wing cabal controlling the court, all right-wing Catholics except for Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic, took the case to make an ideological point and to deliver a slap in the fact to LBGTQ citizens.

@wdlindsy
It certainly appears that way. It's probably the sort of thing they talk about on luxury fishing trips.

Certainly John Roberts is going to give Roger B. Taney a run for his money as the worst Chief Justice of SCOTUS in history.

@wdlindsy And the world watches.
@CanadianCrone Indeed — and should do so, since, even as a decaying empire, the American empire still has long reach throughout the globe and affects much that happens elsewhere.

@wdlindsy We can no longer call SCOTUS legitimate if it rules based on made up cases to further its bias.

We're looking at an established Government institution that should lose its authority, and that should be a requirement from congress, not a stern warning.

@the_Effekt Yes, I agree. I ask myself how, as citizens, we can assert our right to have a functioning and ethical Supreme Court. It seems everything depends on our votes, but for many of us, our votes do not seem to count.
@wdlindsy She didn't even invent a fake couple. The case she brought up was purely hypothetical, and no one has asked her to create a website for a same sex wedding. I wish that no one in my state of Colorado will ask her to create a website for any wedding.
@cherylgk Yes, that's the shocking reality of this Supreme Court case. You'd think they'd have been embarrassed to take it and shame themselves by doing so. But as we've seen repeatedly, they are well beyond shame.
@wdlindsy The court either vacates this ruling that has no basis in fact it it confirms it’s own illegitimacy. Do district courts begin to bring action against SCOTUS?
@voggix I think that, even though they should vacate the ruling, they certainly won't. Hubris is the middle name of the justices now controlling the court. As to your quesiton, I honestly don't know the answer. I'd definitely expect litigation, but I'm not sure it will accomplish a lot, given who has the upper hand on the Supreme bench right now.

@wdlindsy

The timing was calculated and deliberately intended to maximize harm. Don’t forget that Kavanaugh was the GOP’s message guy for years.

We need to be talking about expanding the Court and arresting members for hate crimes and other felonies they have committed, and how to use all these new “freedoms” against THEM.

@wdlindsy Second time Gorsuch has written about a made-up case, last year was the praying football coach
@Dave3307 Thanis for making that good point. A pattner here, for sure.