Civil rights groups and Democrats reacted angrily to the US supreme court decision in favor of the Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, who argued she had a first amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages. Critics of the court’s decision say it ushers in a new era of prejudice in America.
“This ruling on LGBTQ+ rights by the Maga-right activist wing of the supreme court is a giant step backward for human rights and equal protection in America,” said the Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure that all Americans, including LGBTQ+ Americans, have equal protection under the law.”
The progressive Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib called for term limits of justices on the conservative-dominated supreme court which has now ushered in a series of decisions rolling back well-established rights, such as overturning federal protections on abortion and affirmative action.
“End lifetime appointments for supreme court justices. Enforce a binding code of ethics. Expand the court,” Tlaib posted on Twitter.
The New York congressman Ritchie Torres said: “Scotus invokes religious liberty to license discrimination against LGBTQ people. The LGBTQ community might be the first victim of the supreme court’s decision but it won’t be the last. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Civil rights groups were also vocal in their shock and warned of the impact on LGTBQ+ communities across the US who see it as opening the way for people and businesses to legally refuse services to LGBTQ+ people.
“This decision will have a devastating ripple effect across the country by creating a permission structure, backed by the force of law, to discriminate and endanger LGBTQ+ people and trans youth who are already so at risk,” said the Rev Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president and chief executive of the Interfaith Alliance.
“Discrimination under the guise of religious freedom is not just unconstitutional, but antithetical to our values,” added Darcy Hirsh, director of policy and advocacy at the group. “Just as people are free to explore matters of faith and personal conscience, people should also be free to express their sexual orientation and gender identity without fear of discrimination or harm.”
The Human Rights Campaign, one of America’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organizations, called the ruling in the case, known as 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, “unprecedented” and a decision that “will have sweeping and harmful impacts on the LGBTQ+ community and is a dangerous step backwards”.
“Our nation has been on a path of progress – deciding over the course of many decades that businesses should be open regardless of race, disability or religion. People deserve to have commercial spaces that are safe and welcoming,” said the organisation’s president, Kelley Robinson, in a statement.
But the Republican former vice-president Mike Pence, who is running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and popular with rightwing evangelicals, praised the court’s decision.
“Religious freedom is the bedrock of our constitution,” he said, “and today’s decision reminds us that we must elect leaders who will defend that right and appoint judges who support religious freedom.”
Kristin Waggoner with Alliance Defending Freedom, the group that brought Smith’s case, said the court had “rightly reaffirmed that the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe”.
In a six to three vote, split down ideological lines, the highest court ruled that the first amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing the website designer to create expressive designs with which the designer disagreed.
In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the free speech amendment in the constitution “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands”.
Gorsuch also invoked George Orwell, writing that “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
The liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor responded to Gorsuch, writing that “the majority’s repeated invocation of this Orwellian thought policing is revealing of just how much it misunderstands this case”.
I guess we just have to wait for some of these supreme court justices to drop dead or retire and hope for the best. I’m not surprised, given how the supreme court is stacked right now. I think it’s sad that the supreme court is all about politics now. These conservative justices don’t even bother reading the constitution much. They might not even know it inside and out at all. I have the sensation that they kind of just decide before hearing the case based on their political position or personal opinion. After formulating their predetermined opinion they scan the constitution briefly to see what might fit with their opinion and just try to make it all fit together in a weak way. Why bother presenting a case if it isn’t even going to be considered? They’ve already made up their mind before the proceedings.
We need a new system of government and this Supreme Court stacking bullshit is why.
I don’t think it has to do with the system of government. I think it has more to do with how undeserving individuals don’t take their jobs seriously. The job of supreme court justice is to uphold the constitution. The newer appointees of Republican presidents do not do their job as they are supposed to. They just decide based on their personal opinions without examining the law and the proceedings. You can pretty much predict what the supreme court will decide before any lawyers start arguing their case based on the topic at hand. There’s no intellectual interpretation of the constitution here. It’s just whatever they “feel” about it.
Oh, that’s obvious, and don’t worry, I agree. That’s not just an individual problem though, those are serious flaws in the system a literal cult are exploiting to get their way, with no actual legal recourse.
Like say we found out Clarence Thomas was bribed to rule in favor of the web designer in this case. Like, there’s actual video of money passing hands in exchange for a ruling of the buyer’s choice. What happens then?
This ruling alone should be enough to justify recalling justices, if the system we’re under wasn’t so broken, but there are no systemic or legal means to get rid of corrupt Supreme Court judges, so the system is broken and in my not so humble opinion needs to be replaced.
I get what you’re saying, that if we were a nation of people in good faith then this wouldn’t be happening, but if there’s anything we’re all learning, it’s that we can’t assume that our politicians or business owners or neighbors are acting in our best interests, and we need a system that takes that into account, and allows swift and effective accountability and removal for all corrupt members of government.
Yeah, exactly, there should be more transparency and accountability, even though it saddens me. I’m glad you replied again. I follow supreme court rulings and have done so since the 1980s. Historically, in my lifetime, the Supreme Court made surprising decisions in the past. Now, not so much. Pretty much now you can predict how they’re going to rule based on the political bent of the case in question. It didn’t use to be that way. So, yeah, I agree with you. Maybe the job of Supreme Court justice needs to have a term limit and not until you’re dead limit.
There’s a fun thing about the US court system.
The only thing mandated by the US Constitution is the existence of a Supreme Court, and that justices of that Supreme Court “hold their offices during good behavior” (fancy speak for “lifetime appointments”).
The size of the court, the entire federal system of lower courts, the circuits, appeals courts, the whole thing is decided on by Congress. Congress literally passes legislation that dictates what the Court systems look like.
If Congress wanted, it could obliterate every federal court in the country, and every single federal crime would need to be tried by the Supreme Court.
Should one party with a majority wish it and have the political will, that party could expand the Supreme Court by any number of seats. Of course, it would immediately trigger an arms race as control of Congress flipped around, more and more seats would be added (or removed) until the legitimacy of the Court was in shambles.
But then, we’re already at “shambles” aren’t we. Might as well dillute the power of those 9 un-elected individuals by a factor of 50 or so.
Or simply arm-twist the Democrats to get rid of the 5 clearly compromised judges and replace them.
Oh, if such a thing were possible, we wouldn’t be facing the destabilization of the U.S. and civil war. Oh, to dream 😔
The only way to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice is via impeachment and conviction in the Senate. Impeachment requires only a simply majority in the House, but a conviction requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. It’s been a very long time since either party had such majorities.
Democrats held such a majority for about 3 months at the beginning of Obama’s 1st term. As far as I know, we haven’t seen it since.
That’s why the evil people keep nominating younger and younger appointees. The last few fuckers will probably stay there 40 years each