Tag Archives: SCOTUS

WATCH - Brett Kavanaugh's Full Sniveling Statement Against Abuse Allegations - Video

WATCH – Brett Kavanaugh’s Full Sniveling Statement Against Abuse Allegations – VIDEO

Brett Kavanaugh defended his nomination to the Supreme Court in his opening statement at the Senate Judiciary hearing on Thursday, calling efforts to derail his confirmation process a “grotesque and coordinated character assassination” fueled by people’s hatred of President Donald Trump and funded by left-wing opposition groups. “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever,” Vaughan said fighting back faux tears and badly timed breaks for water to add dramatic effect.

Right.

Watch below.

 

Sexual Assault Allegations Against SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Become Public

BREAKING: Sexual Assault Allegations Against SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Become Public

It is being reported that Donald Trump’s controversial SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh is under investigation by the FBI for a sexual assault by a former high school classmate.

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer have reported that the alleged victim told her story in a complaint to Democratic lawmakers on Thursday:

In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.”

Senator Diane Feinstein ignited controversy Thursday by releasing a statement saying she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.

The woman referenced in the letter has yet to be identified, but is being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors, according to The Intercept.

Kavanaugh in a release statement  said: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

 

The GOP Is Trying To Set-Up Cory Booker On A Gay #MeToo Assault

Cory Booker Releases Kavanaugh “Confidential Committee” Documents. Tells GOP to “Bring It” – VIDEO

Sen. Cory Booker,said Thursday that he was ready to risk expulsion from the Senate to expose the “sham” of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Booker, backed up by Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, released emails — designated by the Judiciary Committee as “confidential” — that reference Kavanaugh’s position on racial profiling and thoughts on Roe v. Wade dating from his time as a White House official under President George W. Bush.

“I understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate. … I openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that email right now. Bring it.” Booker said.

Later in the meeting all the Democrats on the committee supported Booker’s decision and invited any retaliation the GOP could bring forth in the Senate.

Blowhard GOP Sen. John Cornyn said before Booker released the documents that if he went ahead, he would be committing an offense that would be tantamount to releasing classified information.

“Running for president is not an excuse for violating the rules of the Senate,” the Texas Republican told Booker. “No senator deserves to sit on this committee, or serve in the Senate in my view, if they decide to be a law unto themselves and willingly flout the rules of the Senate.”

Booker said he doubted Cornyn would follow through on his threats.

“I think he’s like a lot of bullies are: a lot of talk no action.”

You can read the e-mails by CLICKING HERE

16 States Petition US Supreme Court For Companies To Be Able To Fire Workers LGBT Workers

16 States Petition US Supreme Court For Companies To Be Able To Fire LGBT Workers

Via Bloomberg Law

A group of 16 states urged the U.S. Supreme Court Aug. 23 to rule that companies can fire workers based on their sexual orientation and gender identity without violating federal workplace discrimination law.

The states, led by Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, asked the justices to overturn an appeals court decision against a Michigan funeral home that fired a transgender worker. They said Congress didn’t intend the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees. “The States’ purpose is to note that ‘sex’ under the plain terms of Title VII does not mean anything other than biological status,” Peterson wrote.

The friend-of-the-court brief is the latest development in a legal debate that has divided courts and exposed a rift within the Trump administration. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says LGBT bias already is banned, but the Justice Department disagrees.

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin joined the group to support states’ rights to determine employment protections.

“The state’s authority to create employment protections outside Title VII was established when the law was enacted in 1964 and should not change as a result of modern-day judicial activism,” Kuhn said. “Since Attorney General (Andy) Beshear will not defend the well-settled law supported by most Kentuckians, Gov. Bevin was compelled to join attorneys general from other states to ensure that Kentucky’s authority is not stripped away by the courts.”

The brief was co-authored by Nebraska Deputy Attorney General David Bydalek, formerly policy director of the Nebraska affiliate of the anti-gay hate group Focus On The Family.

After SCOTUS Ruling Tennessee Hardware Store Puts Up 'No Gays Allowed' Sign

After SCOTUS Ruling Tennessee Hardware Store That Put Up ‘No Gays Allowed’ Sign Feels Vindicated

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a baker refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couple that was actually not about the cake or “religious freedom” an East Tennessee hardware store owner who two years ago decided to express his beliefs by putting up a sign reading “No Gays Allowed” now feels vindicated

The owner, Jeff Amyx, is both the owner of the hardware and roofing supplies store and a baptist minister who says love between LGBT people is against his religion

Amyx told WBIR he was, inspired by LGBT people’s willingness to stand up for what they believe in, deciding that as a Christian, he should do the same. And that he was celebrating a “win” after the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The SCOTUS ruling said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Jack Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment, though Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

On Tuesday, Amyx removed the “No Gays allowed” sign he has hung on his door for the past 2 years and replaced it with a sign that says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion.”

“I was shocked. I was really shocked because of the track record of our Supreme Court,” Amyx said.  “Christianity is under attack. This is a great win but this is not the end, this is just the beginning,” he said. “Right now we’re seeing a ray of sunshine. This is ‘happy days’ for Christians all over America, but dark days will come.”

Extra Special Bonus!.  Amyx Hardware is now categorized as a “gay bar” on Google and the reviews are epic. (I SWEAR I DIDN’T DO IT!)

rump DOJ Files Supreme Court Brief Against Adoptions By LGBTs

Trump’s White House Applauds SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Anti-Gay Baker

Although the Supreme Court handed Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Bakery a “narrow” win that applies only to his incident with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission and doesn’t set up a sweeping rule enabling anti-LGBT discrimination, many anti-LGBT groups have hailed the decision as a major win for religious freedom and now so does Donald Trump’s White House.

White House Press Secretary Sarah “Smokey Eye” Huckabee Sanders hailed Tuesday as a win for religious freedom the narrow ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to serve a custom-made wedding cake to a same-sex couple.

“When it comes to the bakers, we were pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Sanders said. “The First Amendment prohibits government discriminating against the basis of religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for his religious beliefs.”

Sanders also alluded to support in the lawsuit for Masterpiece Cakeshop by the Trump administration. The U.S. Justice Department submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips and U.S. Solicitor General Neil Francisco argued before the Supreme Court on his behalf.

“In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights,” Sanders said.

The Supreme Court’s vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets.

The justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee. But simpler minds like those of many LGBT hate group leaders, their followers and it seems the White House itself is refusing to recognize that.

Two of the court’s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also was the author of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“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,” Kennedy wrote.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy added.

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Anti-Gay Baker. Reactions. and Read The FULL SCOTUS RULING

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Anti-Gay Baker. Reactions. and Read The FULL SCOTUS RULING

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because it went against his religious beliefs.

The justices, in a decision signed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, did not violate the state’s anti-discrimination law.

The decision faulted the Colorado Civil Right Commission for violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution by making Phillips bake the cake even though he opposed doing so on religious grounds.

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views, in some instances protected forms of expression,” the majority opinion stated.

The ruling went on to blast comments made during the commission’s hearing that denigrated Phillips’ faith and included remarks that compared his belief in religious freedom to past instances when it was used to justify discrimination like slavery and the Holocaust.

“This sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation,” Kennedy said.

The ACLU, which represented Mullins and Craig, said the ruling actually affirms that businesses cannot discriminate.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights continues:

Today’s Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshopis a narrow, fact-based decision that does not break any new constitutional ground or create any new exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. The Court reversed the state court decision only because it found that the record in this case indicated that the Colorado Commission’s deliberations were tainted by anti-religious hostility.

Of course extremist right wing hate groups and Christian Nationalist are calling this a victoy

This is a victory for Jack Phillips and our nation’s long cherished freedom of following one’s deeply held beliefs without fear of government punishment. The Supreme Court made clear that the government has no authority to discriminate against Jack Phillips because of his religious beliefs.

Misguided government officials singled out Jack’s religious beliefs for discriminatory treatment – but that isn’t freedom, it’s tyranny. It’s simply un-American to force people like Jack to compromise their religious beliefs just because they are disfavored by those who have used government entities like this Colorado government commission.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court’s ruling means Jack will remain free to live according to his beliefs whether he is at work, at home, or in his place of worship. As Americans, our consensus on religious freedom has historically recognized the God-given right of Americans to live all aspects of their lives according to their faith. This is no different today. – Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council hate group

:

JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR were the two dissenting Supreme Court judges..

Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wed­ding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.

You can read the SUPREME COURTS FULL RULING BY CLICKING HERE 

 

Eighth Circuit Court Split Decision Supports "Christian" Videographers Denying Service To Gay Couple

Republican California Judge Rules That “Christian” Baker Does Not Have To Make Gay Wedding Cake

While everyone who follows gay news knows that the Supreme Court will soon be ruling on the case of Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado for denying to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. But another lesser know case has been been in the courts in Bakersfield, California. The case of Cathy Miller and Tastries Bakery which has flown under the gay news radar.

Miller refused to make a cake for the wedding of Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio because they are gay.

The newlyweds said the refusal was discrimination against homosexuals; Miller said she had a making the cake would violate her right to religious freedom.

On Monday, Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe, a staunch Republican appointed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said Miller could continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, as such confections were a form of “artistic expression” and “expressive conduct” and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

The judge stated an order from the state to compel someone to directly go against their beliefs would be “the stuff of tyranny.”

“My business is owned by God,” Miller said in August. “We work for the Lord and my convictions and my conscience don’t allow me to participate in a lot of things like I’ve turned all kinds of orders away.”

The group representing her, The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, filed a motion for attorneys’ fees last week under California’s Private Attorney General statute.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is likely to appeal the final judgment in addition to its appeal of the initial denial of its motion for preliminary injunction.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund is allied with the LGBT hate group Alliance Defending Freedom

 

 
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Lambda Legal’s Appeal Of Mississippi’s Law Legalizing Anti-LGBT Discrimination

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Lambda Legal’s Appeal Of Mississippi’s Law Legalizing Anti-LGBT Discrimination

Via Bloomberg 

The U.S. Supreme Court left intact a Mississippi law that lets businesses and government workers refuse on religious grounds to provide services to gay and transgender people. The justices turned away two appeals by state residents and organizations that contended the measure violates the Constitution. A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.

The Mississippi fight in some ways represented the flip side of a Colorado case the high court is currently considering; the question in that instance is whether the state can require a baker who sells wedding cakes to make one for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The Mississippi law, by contrast, gives priority to religious rights. The state enacted its law less than a year after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Let the negative Mississippi business and tourism-destroying Yelp reviews commence!

Not that anyone fucking goes to Mississippi.

Supreme Court

SCOTUS Rejects Lambda Legal’s Appeal In Anti-LGBT Employment Discrimination Case

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will not review the Lambda Legal case on behalf of Jameka Evans, a Savannah security guard who was harassed at work and forced from her job because she is a lesbian.

“By declining to hear this case, the Supreme Court is delaying the inevitable and leaving a split in the circuits that will cause confusion across the country,” said Greg Nevins, Employment Fairness Project Director for Lambda Legal. “But this was not a “no” but a “not yet,” and rest assured that Lambda Legal will continue the fight, circuit by circuit as necessary, to establish that the Civil Rights Act prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The vast majority of Americans believe that LGBT people should be treated equally in the workplace. The public is on the right side of history; it’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court has refused to join us today, but we will continue to invite them to do the right thing and end this hurtful balkanization of the right of LGBT people to be out at work.”

“This term will not see the Supreme Court provide a national remedy to stop the pervasive discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace. But don’t despair; if you have experienced discrimination in the workplace, please contact Lambda Legal’s Help Desk,” said Nevins. “We urge Congress to pass a federal law explicitly banning discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Several federal courts have affirmed the argument that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, when properly understood, protects LGBT employees. Most notably, the full Seventh Circuit overruled four of its precedents and ruled in April that Lambda Legal client Kimberly Hively could proceed under the Civil Rights Act with her claim that Indiana-based Ivy Tech Community College discriminated against her because she is a lesbian. In September, Lambda Legal argued before the full Second Circuit, which is reexamining two of its precedents in Zarda v. Altitude Express, the case of a New York skydiving instructor who was fired from his job because he was gay. No ruling has been issued yet in Zarda.

It could be that SCOTUS rejected the case because the details don’t speak to the specific issues that need to be addressed. Or it could be the court is signalling how they plan to rule on the bakery case.

For now only The Magic 8 Ball knows for sure.