07-03-2023, 01:00 PM
So, I obviously have some issues with this case. I feel like it shouldn't have had standing to begin with as it was adjudicating a hypothetical. There was no injury that occurred and that has historically meant the courts would not take it up. I need to look a little further into this, but I really feel like that in-and-of-itself sets this case as an unusual one.
I also disagree with the ruling itself in the way it looked at expression. The majority of the court took an interesting view in saying that a product created for a person is the speech of the person that created it rather than the speech of the person who contracted the service. That is what the opinion boils down to and I just have a hard time with that. I think this case did ask some hard questions and when you listen to the oral arguments that occurred in this case you can tell that this was a question the justices wrestled with as well. This was a case where the political sympathies guided the opinion rather than the logic and law, but that is simply because there is no good logical or legal answer which is why they tried to write the opinion in a way that narrowed the decision so tightly.
The issue is that while the ruling itself is very narrow, the logic presented in the opinion can be applied to many other situations of discrimination. They would still need to be litigated for it to apply, but I am expecting cases of racial and religious discrimination to be brought and citing this case as their logic and it isn't a stretch. It is interesting that they decided to essentially ignore the religious angle in the case as well.
This really was just an odd case all around.
I also disagree with the ruling itself in the way it looked at expression. The majority of the court took an interesting view in saying that a product created for a person is the speech of the person that created it rather than the speech of the person who contracted the service. That is what the opinion boils down to and I just have a hard time with that. I think this case did ask some hard questions and when you listen to the oral arguments that occurred in this case you can tell that this was a question the justices wrestled with as well. This was a case where the political sympathies guided the opinion rather than the logic and law, but that is simply because there is no good logical or legal answer which is why they tried to write the opinion in a way that narrowed the decision so tightly.
The issue is that while the ruling itself is very narrow, the logic presented in the opinion can be applied to many other situations of discrimination. They would still need to be litigated for it to apply, but I am expecting cases of racial and religious discrimination to be brought and citing this case as their logic and it isn't a stretch. It is interesting that they decided to essentially ignore the religious angle in the case as well.
This really was just an odd case all around.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
