436 Comments
Jul 12, 2023·edited Jul 12, 2023

Regardless of any ideological concerns, real or imagined, the revelation that the court is fundamentally corrupt (like the rest of our government) and that several of the justices have absolutely no personal integrity whatsoever is a rather significant development. It turns out the one branch of government that a person could still have some level of faith in is just as much of a circus as the other two branches. Unless major ethics reforms are instituted they have opened the door for the court to participate in completely unbridled corruption.

The Dobbs decision and, more broadly, Thomas' stated dislike for well established precedents is also an extremely significant development. I say this because, 'yunno, it undermines the entire basis of our legal system and stuff. Regardless of the current court's dearth of issues they are ideologically split on, they have opened the door for the court to be a nakedly partisan entity which can reverse course whenever ideology swings the other way. Republicans are all excited about this now, but wait until the court swings liberal and a major gun rights case comes up. We'll be buying our ARs and providing them to the government to grind up every time there's an appointment.

There's also the fact that this decision on gay marriage and free speech is based on a case that does not actually exist. The court allowed a theoretical issue to be decided based on a nonexistent case brought by an activist. We can be sure we will see more of that in the future.

Expand full comment

Excellent piece. Now we know that Joe Biden's legal perspectives are as haywire as his judgment of Hunter's character. He needs to go away.

Expand full comment

“I want very much to find a way to define diversity where it takes into account that your parents paid God only knows how much for a college counselor and you went to the best prep schools and you got the same scores and the same grades as the kid who had none of that. Well, then, yeah, I think schools should be able to look at those two kids realistically about which one might add more to their class.”

Well, the current problem is that the kid who has none of the advantages and did NOT get the same scores and grades is getting in over the kids who got much higher marks. Go play around on College Vine’s admissions chances tool. Put in hypothetical scores and credentials and mark Asian or White for race, then leave everything the same except change the race to Black. Your chances of admission literally DOUBLE at many top schools. With the same grades and scores! This is nonsense.

I honestly feel like the best way to combat it is for every single applicant to mark Black. Then it strips that box of its power. But really, if it’s illegal to consider race in college admission, it should be illegal to even ask for it on an application.

Expand full comment

I have a problem when anyone, Bari included, starts a discussion by appealing to authority...classical logical fallacy. I DO NOT CARE about the cv of those being asked for their opinion, it is not relevant. The arguments presented by the court are what is in question, not the pedigree of those commenting. Affirmative action is clearly, and obviously wrong on its face. Not doing business with ANYONE is clearly the right of the business, do this at your peril if you exclude certain people. The root of the problem is the assumption that the government can and should decide what you can do that does not harm anyone else. In this regard the left is clearly wrong and applies randomly and subjectively the notion that angelic governments can and should govern behavior, wrong on all fronts.

Expand full comment

An excellent discussion, expertly moderated by BW. A full breadth of erudite and well thought opinions on these matters. While I respect all of these opinions, I must opine that the SCOTUS has acted in good conscience and does not seem to be partisan. I , of course, am not a progressive or liberal, though I consider myself center-right. The Constitution is the North Star of our society. We should all strive to uphold the spirit of this brilliant document, though we will certainly debate the language as literal or loaded. We need to teach coexistence with views that will always be opposing and disparate, but we cannot cast shame or doubt on the institution of the SCOTUS. It would be irrational to imagine that any SCOTUS judge can be clean slate, as each enters with values and worldview. I agree that the SCOTUS has three cohorts: liberal, conservative, and swing. The court does reflect the nation in its diversity of values. Brilliant discussion.

Expand full comment

The point that the gay character of the clients is problematic is spot on. I wish the facts had been a Christian client wanting a gay designer to promulgate a “marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” message. The critics would be lauding the decision.

Expand full comment

“hypothetical: a couple goes to another web designer and instead of being turned down for being a same-sex couple, they get turned down for being an interracial couple because they don’t believe in interracial marriage. Under this 303 Creative ruling, it is not indistinguishable.”

No no no. The case emphatically does NOT say that you can turn away an interracial couple (or anyone else). That misses the whole point. What you can turn down is the MESSAGE.

Expand full comment
founding

Re: "On diversity and affirmative action", I think a previous comment of mine is relevant:

https://www.thefp.com/p/what-happens-after-the-end-of-affirmative/comment/17841334

Expand full comment

Even the most brilliant minds are susceptible to sunk-cost sophistry. Islands of irrational bias exist in every mind, but the irrational bias is camouflaged by political banter. The truth is, bias of any kind is wrong. Access to all that is good should be a meritocracy. Equity of outcome is ridiculous. Activists who think that SCOTUS striking down affirmative action are irrational. Do we have affirmative action in professional sports to make sure that short white guys can play for the NBA?

Expand full comment

As far as requiring someone who provides a service with a soupcon of creativity--a web designer, a cake baker, a ghost writer, or a brand consultant--to produce work that is offensive to their beliefs, the objectionable examples are comically easy to generate. Would you require a far-left baker to make a cake with a neo-nazi symbol on it? Would you require an Orthodox Jewish baker to make a bread with proscuitto in it? Under penalty of the law? Compelled speech is inimical to human happiness and societal well-being, and is an essential characteristic of every oppressive regime in history. Please let's screw our heads on straight.

Expand full comment

If there is an illegitimate branch of government, SCOTUS isn't it.

Expand full comment

The dissents of the three justices would make great guess columns in Slate.

Expand full comment

Everyone knows that inter racial marriages are constitutionally protected by the SCOTUS Loving decision 1967. Please do not conflate gay “rights” with racial discrimination. The Roman Catholic religion does not condone, sanction, bless or extend the sacrament of matrimony to gay unions. A Catholic business owner cannot be put in a position where she is forced to think and behave in a manner contradictory to her faith to enable her to facilitate such a union. Thought or mind control will not fly with this court.

Also, do not round up the usual leftist mainstream media pundits to put on your panels.

How about a a couple of bright Conservative minds that know the court?

Expand full comment

Actual liberals, worthy of the name, believe neither in censorship nor in compelled speech.

Expand full comment

Just so we’re clear, isn’t Diversity an old wooden ship?

Expand full comment