Tweet
well talent here's an early decision from California of all places regarding gay wedding cakes
-
-
Well, it's just a local judge, but at least he got it right. It's also more or less a moot decision -- The Supreme Court will resolve the issue shortly. If they decide that the State can't compel speech, then the issue is moot. If they don't then each State is free to force its citizens to make State-approved speech provided the Statist properspeak doesn't run afoul of state laws (like maybe a State constitutional provision).Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
I would hope that it's a 9-0 decision. I can't imagine the court saying that I must be served if I find an Islamic baker and demand a cake celebrating paganism with an image of Allah eating a bacon sandwich on the top.
But I have a question on the designation of precedent. Some SC rulings address the issue before the court only and other rulings have the weight of precedent. How is that determined?“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
So, a very "quick" primer on Supreme Court practice. First, if you want to have the SCt hear your case, you have to petition the Ct using what is called a "Writ of Certiorari". Second, the Ct, upon reviewing your request, will most likely decline to hear your case, but they may opt to hear it -- that's called "Granting Cert" -- sure you've heard that. Denying cert has zero precedential value. Third, if the grant cert the Court will rule on the issue in one of two ways: (a) they may issue a very short, "unauthored" opinion ("per curiam") that almost always just reverses a Circuit court error; or (b) they will issue a full opinion (what you think of as an opinion).Some SC rulings address the issue before the court only and other rulings have the weight of precedent. How is that determined?
Ok, for per curiam opinions, they're often just bitch-slapping a terrible Circuit Court opinion. Those opinions don't actually create new law or precedent so much as correct a misapplication of the law. The 9th Circuit routinely gets smacked around like this on cases of habeus or death penalty or other criminal shit.
The actual opinions are where you have real precedential value. But, you're right, it's not always easy to figure out the precedent. For example, it may be that SCt limits its holding to these facts -- so, maybe a baker that is compelled to right "Long Live Gay Marriage". That leaves the door open for more something like a cake that is for a gay wedding without any particular speech written on it. Or they may just say that if you have a sincere religious conviction you're free to withhold your services for specific issues provided you don't discriminate against an entire class (you can refuse to do gay weddings; but can't refuse to serve gay customers with other cakes or off the shelf wedding cakes).
Those two rulings are dramatically different in precedent. The easiest way to figure out the holding is to read the "Syllabus" -- it's the multi-paragraph "summary" of the decision. The Syllabus should be fairly clear as to how narrow or broad the ruling is -- or least give you an idea.
So, if you read the Gay Marriage case, the ruling is fairly broad. The rationale and reasoning applied to justify the decision are extremely broad. So, if I were an attorney arguing that, e.g., polygamy should be allowed I'd rely on the broad reasoning. The State would argue that the decision only dealt with gay marriage and is so limited. Then a District Court judge would decided; then a Court of Appeals; then, maybe, the Supreme Court.
Finally, the Supreme Court only rules on issues of Federal law -- statutes and Constitution (generally -- there are esoteric exceptions). So, decisions by State courts under state law (statutes or state constitution) aren't appealable to the Supreme Court UNLESS they conflict with/violate Federal law. So, the Pennsylvania gerrymandering case was decided on purely state grounds. States are, more or less, free to decided how to district. Thus, there's no conflict with Federal law and no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
I could go on and on and on -- I know I've already Buchanan'd up this answer way to much, but I also know that it will annoy The Wizard and hopefully The Oracle, so I'm cool with it.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Comment
-
hehShut the fuck up Donny!Comment
-
Thanks, Talent.“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
Former CIA analysts take issue with Nune's effort at disinformation. (Opinion piece.)
(Jeff Asher was a counterintelligence analyst for the CIA for five years. Nada Bakos is a CNN national security analyst and former CIA analyst. Cindy Otis worked for the CIA for 10 years as a military analyst and a branch chief.)
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
Nune is an idiot.Comment
-
The text about POTUS wanting an update 3 days before the G20 where he confronted Putin is totally scandalous.Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post
Comment
-
lolShut the fuck up Donny!Comment
-
"So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now"
Comment
-
Why aren't these people all in prison? Why isn't Jeff Sessions doing his job?? ARGGHHHHHComment
-
power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutelyShut the fuck up Donny!Comment
Comment