100% designed to bring this issue to the supreme court, that’s all.

Especially after two lower courts sided with Colorado already.

The court took it cause they felt like it. Full stop. Standing, harm, prior precedence, it all just goes out the window when there is a 6/3 majority.

The Supreme Court is explicitly political, partisan organization, which should have been obvious after bush v gore but now this is here to remind a new generation what a joke this thing is.

I'm not sure why states are not just ignoring federal courts at this point. The GOP hasn't allowed democrats to appoint any judges (even when they had majorities in the senate) for over a decade now. There is no reason for blue states to abide at all at this point, and they should just defer to their own state level courts instead. Either that or a 'supreme court in exile' needs to be made to counter this.

> The GOP hasn't allowed democrats to appoint any judges (even when they had majorities in the senate) for over a decade now.

In case anyone was curious, literally the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court was by (Democratic president) Joe Biden. Ketanji Brown Jackson began her service exactly one year ago.

(Biden has also appointed over a hundred other federal judges.)

You are confusing things here. One liberal supreme court justice (with none of the others being picked by the incumbent administration and instead decided by McConnell and co.) does not make up for the hundreds that have aged/died out of office since the clinton and obama years.

From there it's a slippery slope to not even maintaining a facade of following the Constitution. I don't know if any system can really be "perfect" in balancing different moralities, or having a reasonable recovery mechanism to address what are considered intolerable injustices. I think this was all a matter of time in the grand scheme of things.

> From there it's a slippery slope to not even maintaining a facade of following the Constitution.

SCOTUS is already there. The GOP is also pretty much there.

I'm not sure if the SCOTUS is quite there yet but I get what you mean. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What a time to live in.

Is it overtly a hypothetical? My understanding is that the "customer" in the case may have been fabricated.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-...

It was fabricated. He has no idea what's going on. He's also not gay. He's married to a woman.

It seems like the plaintiff's lawyer lied - the person they "denied" a website for was a straight married guy who never interacted with the business owner.