SCOTUS – Page 5 – * Failed Pols

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault, just before a vote for his confirmation was to take place on Thursday, September 20. In their haste to confirm a Supreme Court justice who would support their agenda, however, most Republican federal lawmakers are willing to diminish the gravity of the accusations against Kavanaugh. After all, having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court would create a conservative majority on the court – a Republican dream come true.

Democrats, a few key Republicans, and even White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway, want to give Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, a chance to be heard before a vote is cast for Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. Among the Republican Senators who oppose an immediate vote are Lindsey Graham of North Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine.

Besides the obvious and grave importance of taking allegations of sexual assault seriously and giving both sides a chance to be heard in court, there are several other reasons why it’s important to delay the vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until both Ford and Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

First is the attention the #MeToo movement has brought to sexual assault and sexual misconduct by powerful men (and how they’ve gotten away with it in the past). If Republicans were to ignore or downplay the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, it would surely cost them votes in the November elections.

As CNN’s Stephen Collinson writes, “The spectacle of white, middle-aged or elderly men on the GOP bench voting to confirm Kavanaugh in the committee could prove a damaging image in districts that could turn on a younger, more diverse electorate.”

Second, a Supreme Court Justice appointment is for life – it’s not the same as a summer job at the Dairy Queen. An ice cream stand employee may be hired quickly, likely won’t undergo an extensive background check, and can be fired at will. Dairy Queen can afford to take a chance on the employee.

The U.S. cannot afford to take such a chance on an employee who is appointed for life. A Supreme Court justice can have a huge impact on the direction of our country. That impact can last indefinitely, as could his or her position on the Supreme Court. Thorough scrutiny is imperative, and more so in the face of allegations of wrongdoing.

Failure to thoroughly vet Brett Kavanaugh in favor of quickly pushing him through the appointment process could backfire for Republicans. Trying to force their agenda by downplaying the accusations against him could be a short-term win for the Republicans, but could cost them votes in November. It may cost them votes, even at this point, however, if they continue to speak out against allowing Kavanaugh’s accuser to share her story.

New Kavanaugh hearing to address allegations | Fox Business [2018-09-17]

Full Duckworth: Senate Has To ‘Set An Example’ By Taking Kavanaugh Allegations | MTP Daily | MSNBC [2018-09-17]

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]

Category: SCOTUS

Two Reasons Why the Kavanaugh Vote Should Be Delayed

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