Heidi Tran – Page 96 – * Failed Pols

Shortly after CBS News reported that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders may be planning to leave her job at the White House departure at the end of the year, Sanders almost denied it in this tweet:
“Does @CBSNews know something I don’t about my plans and my future? I was at my daughter’s year-end Kindergarten event and they ran a story about my “plans to leave the WH” without even talking to me. I love my job and am honored to work for @POTUS.”
But in light of the current public doubt about Sanders’ credibility, her quasi-denial doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Sanders’ veracity has frequently been challenged by the media. On numerous occasions during White House daily briefings and press conferences, she has made statements that were later found to be false. When asked about them, Sanders has said she misspoke due to a lack of correct information at the time.

Even before the possibility of Sarah Sanders’ White House resignation came to light, one had to wonder whether she likes her job, or whether she hates the position she’s constantly in – that of representing to the media and to the world, a president who is known to frequently lie, change his stories, and speak and act impulsively.

If Sanders likes her job, one would conclude that she must truly believe what she says when she unfailingly defends Trump’s behavior in her position at the White House podium. The other alternative would be that she is aware of Trump’s many lies, exaggerations, and inaccuracies, and herself has a poor relationship with the truth, and even that she is estranged from her conscience.

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell whether Sarah Sanders is making things up on the spot, or whether she’s been briefed. Some examples:

The statement that women traveling with undocumented immigrants through Mexico were “raped at levels that nobody has ever seen before.”

And this one: “Everybody acts like President Trump is the one that came up with this idea. … There are multiple news outlets that have reported” former President Barack Obama ordered wiretapping on Trump.

In addition, Sanders often says that some of the cruel and insulting things Trump has said were “jokes.”

Sarah Sanders has also denied any plans for firing various senior advisors, only for them to be fired shortly thereafter.

Perhaps most famously, Sanders denied that Trump knew about his lawyer’s payment to Stormy Daniels, citing a personal conversation she had had with him. Later, when Trump changed his story and admitted he had known about the payment to keep Daniels from going to the media about their affair, Trump put Sarah Sanders in the position of a deer caught in headlights.

Did Sarah Sanders lie for Trump? Did Trump lie to her when he denied knowledge of the payment, and did she believe him? Sarah Sanders, who always has the President’s back, learned from this that he didn’t always have her back. This realization could certainly be a factor in Sarah Sanders’ decision to leave the White House.

There aren’t many options for ways to respond when the press, on live television, calls you on a falsehood that you had previously insisted was the truth. Either you admit you’ve lied, or you have to throw your boss under the bus by admitting to the press that he gave you the false information.

Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders being misled by Trump on a regular basis, or is she deliberately misleading people when she briefs the White House press every day? If she intentionally lies on behalf of Donald Trump, then she’s lost her credibility. If she doesn’t willingly lie for Trump, and simply believes she’s telling the truth regarding Trump and his escapades, she shows herself to be incredibly gullible – and, again, lacking in credibility.

For a person of integrity, the stress of a job such as Sanders’ could eventually take a toll on one’s health and well-being. Even for a person who lacks integrity, such a job could break the stress barrier. Whichever person Sarah Sanders is, it must be tough to stand in front of the White House press every day, defending a president who is known for propensity to lie on a regular basis. Who could fault Sarah Huckabee Sanders if she wants to leave the White House?

Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah expected to leave White House posts | CBS News [2018-06-14]

Sanders slams report she considered leaving White House | Fox News [2018-06-14]

How will the Supreme Court’s recent “same-sex wedding cake” decision impact businesses and their potential clients in the future? Some see the ruling as a restrictive blow to the LGBTQ community, while others see it as a victory for the freedoms of expression and religion. In reality, this particular judgment in favor of the baker who refused to create a same-sex wedding cake for a gay couple probably changes very little for either side.

In 2012, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop of Colorado to create a wedding cake for them. The bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, refused, saying that it would violate his religious beliefs to support or take part in a same-sex wedding.

Mullins and Craig made a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission ruled that Phillips and his bakery were in violation of Colorado law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Colorado State Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s decision.

Following the ruling, Jack Phillips appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Phillips argued that being required to use his artistic talent in support of same-sex marriage violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Phillips also argued that, because of his religious beliefs, requiring him to participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding was a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

In a decision that surprised many, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. But the court’s judgment should not cause us to make assumptions about what could happen in the future if another business, such as a bakery, refuses services to a gay couple, such as, say, making a same-sex wedding cake.

Do businesses now have the right to refuse gay clientele?

Following news of the same-sex wedding cake ruling by the Supreme Court, social media lit up with photos of businesses displaying signs that declared “gays not welcome” and similar sentiments. Those who oppose not only same-sex marriage, but also the LGBTQ community, felt justified and safe to proclaim their bigotry out loud.

But the Supreme Court ruling does not grant businesses the right to refuse gay clientele, and it doesn’t grant them the right to refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake. The Supreme Court made it clear that its ruling was not to decide the question of whether people have the general right to refuse to serve LGBTQ customers based on religious objections.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Supreme Court’s decision, stated “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” saying further that “religious protections do not generally extend to business owners refusing to provide equal access to goods and services.”

Why did the Supreme Court rule the way it did?

Though Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were found by the Colorado State Supreme Court to be in violation of state laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the case from a different angle. It found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had handled the case unconstitutionally, in an unfair and biased manner hostile to religion. Remarks from at least one commissioner showed an inability by the commission to honor Phillip’s constitutional right to a fair and neutral hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop did not clearly address either of Phillips’ arguments that his freedoms of speech and religion would be violated if he were ordered to create a same-sex wedding cake. Consequently, similar cases in the future will need to be decided apart from the ruling made here.

Why does the ACLU consider this a victory, of sorts?

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said, “The Court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people. The Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all.”

The recent “same-sex wedding cake” ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t provide guidance as to whether artistic expression in the form of food creation is considered free expression. Neither does it advise whether it is a violation of freedom of religion to require a baker to make a same-sex wedding cake when it goes against his or her religious convictions. But it also does not provide any legal ammunition for those business owners who would mistake the ruling for permission to discriminate or refuse services based on sexual orientation. The next bakery owner who refuses to bake a same-sex wedding cake under similar circumstances is likely to find himself or herself in a similar legal position, which will be judged separately from this case.

What You Should Know About The Supreme Court’s Wedding Cake Decision (HBO) | VICE News [2018-06-05]

U.S. Supreme Court sides with baker in same-sex wedding cake case |
Atlanta Journal-Constitution [2018-06-04]

Author: Heidi Tran

Will Sarah Sanders Leave the White House? Who Could Blame Her?

What Does the “Same-Sex Wedding Cake Decision” Mean?