SchrödingersCatJul 3, 2023
George Takei  🏳️‍🌈🖖🏽

So let me get this straight. The Supreme Court is only supposed to take cases where there is a real injury and real controversy, but it took the case of a web designer who faked a request by a gay customer for a website design? The guy was actually straight, married and with kids?

Vacate this case.

Jul 2, 2023 at 3:26pmWeb
Show threadRS ThomasJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei What appalls me the most is the entire point of her IDEA for a business was the "No Queers Allowed" sign. God called her to create a business exclusively to discriminate.
Show threadJohn M FloresJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei the Supreme Court is losing credibility daily.
Show threadRobert BrucatoJul 2, 2023
@JohnMFlores @georgetakei their legitimacy is all they have as well. And that’s gone
Show threadGregory McCrackenJul 2, 2023
@JohnMFlores @georgetakei What credibility?
Show threadJohn M FloresJul 2, 2023
@GregoryCMcC @georgetakei They've recently made some important rulings in gerrymandering cases
Show threadDanJul 2, 2023
@JohnMFlores @georgetakei
The high court is one of political appointees. It should’ve been always viewed with suspicion.
Show threadJohn M FloresJul 2, 2023
@danpnw @georgetakei How do you think they should be seated?
Show threadRaymondJul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

Also, so-called we designer hadn't designed any wedding websites for straight couples either. She just might some day want to creat them. So it goes.

Show threadsOlOw-NHJul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

Doubtful, then they'd have to give their 'donations' back

Show threadSharon Gibson MorganJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei Apparently, this woman's faith and the Christian firm representing her have an allowance for bearing false witness.
Show thread☕️🥞 Jelly Doll 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️Jul 2, 2023
@georgetakei SCOTUS is a puppet court for evangelicals.
Show threadDoreen32128 ready to rumble!Jul 2, 2023
@0xc0ffea @georgetakei 🎯
Show threadMarc TriusJul 2, 2023
@0xc0ffea
Nu, it was established as a puppet court for plantation owners. I bet it's still pretty much the same families running it now
@georgetakei
Show thread📎🖐️ Alan Taylor 🎬 📚Jul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

Too many fishing trips...the house has now an open door. Give us what ya got. 🧐

Show threadjsegerJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei the bigotry is staggering.
Show threadRaymondJul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

I wonder what fresh hell we would be in if Biden just declared that the executive will disregard advisory opinions given to petitioners who do not have standing.

To a simpleton like me, it seems he has as much authority to do that as they have to give advisory opinions in the first place.

Show threadIndependent JakeJul 2, 2023

@RaymondEdwardF @georgetakei It does bring into question the power of the president, vs. the supreme court, who seems to have the power to ignore or reinterpret the framework of our constitution if they so wish.

Let's say, for example only, we had 9 conservative justices who decided to completely re-interpret the constitution thus putting us back to the 1950’s standards where most discrimination, for any group, was considered normal. Hell, we're just lacking 3 or 4 right now! WHO has the power to circumvent or abolish the court, should that happen? Anyone? We really need to know that answer, and I don't know it.

Show threadChrisJul 2, 2023

@RaymondEdwardF

Andrew Jackson did this and faced zero consequences for it.

Show threadRaymondJul 3, 2023

@Fylkir

Starry diets! That's latin for precedent.

Show threadSausalitoHippeJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei how can this be challenged?
Show threadDarwin WoodkaJul 2, 2023
@sausalitohippe @georgetakei Well if I were the guy whose name she used, I would be suing her for perjury for starters.
Show threadChaz DavisJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei you forget, these are not honorable individuals. They'll do what they can to push the fascist agenda & do what their billionaire bosses tell them to do. 😡 They don't care what the people who don't pay them need.
Show threadGabsJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei if she had brought that imaginary case to the lower courts they would have thrown it out and the Little Vatican on the Hill knew this. So they had to break protocol to do this
Show threadSharon Gibson MorganJul 2, 2023
@muse @georgetakei Wait. This case didn't work through the system to get to the SCOTUS? How does a firm take a case and leapfrog all the way to the highest court in the land?
Show threadadamriceJul 2, 2023
@SharonGibson3 @muse @georgetakei it did work its way up through the system.
Show threadGabsJul 2, 2023
@adamrice @SharonGibson3 @georgetakei https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da
The man named in the Supreme Court's gay rights ruling says he didn't request a wedding website

A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled could refuse to make a wedding website for gay couples had cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her. The request in dispute wasn’t the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue. The revelation distracts from Smith’s victory. Friday's ruling is widely considered a setback for gay rights.

AP News
Show threadGabsJul 2, 2023
@SharonGibson3 @georgetakei also https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-lgbtq/
Procedure exists to force the Supreme Court to rehear 'made up' wedding website case: Neal Katyal

Based upon new evidence that a landmark Supreme Court case on religious and 1st Amendment rights was based upon a bogus claim, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal claimed that Colorado's attorney general has a duty to ask the court to rehear the case and that a justice on the court could also ask t...

Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism
Show thread!BobJul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

To me, it says that 9 justices on SCOTUS are clearly overworked and don't have time to delve deeply enough into their cases to catch such an obvious error in lower courts.

Clearly they need more justices to properly do their job.

Expand the court.

Show threadIndependent JakeJul 2, 2023
@plasmator @georgetakei The court opinion involved the 1st amendment. But in this case, it was the non-discrimination requirement of the business license that was really on the line. The court created an exception for that business license with respect creative services, which I consider wrong because it was a PUBLIC service. If she had a personal religious objection to any design work as part of that public service, she should have been required to hire someone who COULD perform the task, thus satisfying the anti-descrimination provisions of the business license. I've lost total respect for this court.
Show threadGodzilla_KOM🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈Jul 2, 2023
@plasmator @georgetakei Pack the court.
Show threadMichael RobertsJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei And also the case of Republican state attorneys general who claim they'll get less *tax money* if the loan servicer in Missouri doesn't get to service more loans. The tax servicer denied this claim but the Court (and I've had Taco Bell burritos more supreme than the Roberts court) figures eh, good enough to impose their unelected will on America.
Show threadHiCoo 💙🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Jul 2, 2023
@georgetakei From an outside perspective - sounds like you need to vacate your current #SCOTUS
Show threadGeoff WilbournJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei the court that was bought and paid for ??? The one that Mitch Stacked ??? Color me SHOCKED !!!! This is why VOTING matters and why we can't have nice things!!
Show threadjadeablissJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei this is ridiculous. that court is illegitimate
Show threadJetsfanSouthJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei Biden needs to expand the courts
Show threadMichael GemarJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei Once the concept of standing is eliminated, there is nothing to prevent the court from literally legislating from the bench on whatever strikes their fancy.
Show threadWoodswalkedJul 2, 2023

@michaelgemar

Now that they have eliminated stare decisis and standing, they are free to repeat whatever brings them the most money in bribes. Highest bidder takes all!

cc: @georgetakei

Show threadGeorge 🍦🚲 🥾 ✌️🌎 🌌Jul 2, 2023
@georgetakei How, just how in the world did no one fact check before it even got off the ground?
Show threadKropotkinbakingJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei they won't vacate it because we ask nicely.
Show threadReach for the Stars Jul 2, 2023
@georgetakei By the same token SCOTUS is not supposed to consider non-contested issues. Had the state challenged the facts of the case, it might never have made it to SCOTUS, but the state stipulated that it agreed with the facts as presented and that the only controversy was the matter of law. SCOTUS ruled on based the facts that the parties agreed were not in dispute (even if they were not real).
Show threadShdwdrgnJul 2, 2023

@georgetakei Don't forget that the guy who supposedly submitted the request was a web designer himself, and wouldn't have had any need for someone else's services.

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/07/01/supreme-court-303-creative-ruling-stewart-gay-rights/

Man named in Supreme Court’s Colorado gay rights ruling says he didn’t request a wedding website

The request in dispute, from a person identified as “Stewart,” wasn’t the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wed…

The Denver Post
Show threadNihl L'AmasJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei BuT wHaTS aBOuT tEh NORMZZ?
Show threadIndependent JakeJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei Agree, why isn't there more discussion on why this case was chosen? I also wanted to hear more about the business license requirements of that state and how the court has circumvented those requirements.
Show threadTony Diep (He/Him)Jul 2, 2023

@georgetakei

#ChristianRight fabricating evidence for #SupremeCourt to bless discrimination against #LGBTQ under pretense of #ReligiousFreedom is on-brand for them.

Remember #Kavanaugh #Gorsuch and #Barrett lied about #Abortion to get on to the court.

Show threadJeff ♨️ DarcyJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei This court has already shattered norms of precedent, recusal, and now standing. My guess is that they'll go after rules of evidence next. Most activist judges in US (world?) history.
Show threadSyntaxErrorsJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei I totally don't understand how this works. The Court will now rule on pretend cases??
Show threadScott KnowlesJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei SCOTUS ruled on a case that didn't happen and people who don't exist. Plaintiff made it up. Worse she filed legal papers citing this event and people. She lied on legal documents. Only shows SCOTUS wanted to issue ruling and used this case knowing they ruled on imaginary case. SCOTUS conservative justices proved they're the clown show.
Show threadSir David NielsenJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei and sue her for wasting the court’s time.
Show threadScott KnowlesJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei SCOTUS will see this case and issue again, but next time it will be white Christians who faced discrimination by business who refused to serve them based on their right of free speech to discriminate. SCOTUS will have to reverse ruling or rule everyone has free speech right to discriminate against white Christians. Wait for it.
Show threadHowToPhil (Phillip R)Jul 2, 2023
@georgetakei SCOTUS is now an illegal group
Show threadfana_fi_tajalliJul 2, 2023
@georgetakei fantasy facts, someone called in on Defending Pride the other night.