Reporter discovers man named in 303 Creative case is not gay and did request a wedding website
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Michael Steele is joined by Melissa Gira Grant, writer for The New Republic and Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General during the Obama administration who argued and won a major win for voting rights in the landmark Moore v. Harper case this week. Grant discusses her reporting that the man named in Supreme Court’s 303 Creative ruling didn’t actually request a wedding website and other bizarre details that raise questions about the case's legitimacy. “This was built on a fiction. It was based on an injury that has never happened,” Grant explains. Katyal discusses the harmful implications of arguing hypothetical cases. “It’s a tragedy that they didn't find this information before,” Katyal says. “There is a procedure to get this case stricken from the books…Otherwise, the Supreme Court can dragged into all sorts of controversies that aren't legal cases but just imaginary fights between people and that's not what the court is about.”
» Subscribe to MSNBC: on.msnbc.com/Su...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/...
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/...
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: on.msnbc.com/Re...
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersUA-cam
Find MSNBC on Facebook: on.msnbc.com/Li...
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: on.msnbc.com/Fo...
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: on.msnbc.com/In...
#SCOTUS #303Creative #Velshi
The women and lawyers who filed this case should be held accountable.
Held accountable and DISBARRED.
Unfortunately there is no court to appeal this case to. Maybe he can sue on some other basis
Perjury?
Investigate prosecute convict and jail the attys and Smith
It's a scam to file false police reports, falsify your tax returns, and it should be against the law for people to file false litigation like this also.
Its not a "hypothetical" case. Its a fraudulent case.
No. It's settled.
@@kelperdude I wouldn’t count on it being settled. Besides these rulings can be used in ways not anticipated. Now anybody can discriminate against anybody just by invoking their religious beliefs. I am an atheist therefore if I don’t want to do something I can invoke my abhorrence with dealing with Christians. I’m not an atheist but that’s where this is going.
@@kelperdude More time to type than brains.
@@kelperdudeit's a fraud case. They made a ruling on a lie.
@@amacaddict He's been wrong about everything else. Of course he's wrong about this.
How does a case like this get all the way to the supreme court, after 7 years, and absolutely no one tries to reach out to this guy? That's absolutely insane to me
I'm really stunned by this! 🤦🤦
Conservatives have no morals. All conservatives are parasites, not human beings. You can't expect the parasite/conservative to be human.
My thoughts exactly.
The “nice” people didn’t fight or care enough. They never do. Democrats think they fight, but in reality, they are done before Republicans even begin! Republicans want it more, fight harder - and win!
It's called being manipulative. Tbh, the likelihood that those in favor of the ruling (especially all the lawyers and judges that helped pass it along forward) knew that this from the beginning is pretty high
Anybody still think that the Supreme Court is not corrupt?
This story is BS
@@people744Russian troll.
I knew it was corrupt the day that Thomas cretin was given a seat.
And the only bright light since, has been Judge Ketanji Brown.
Biden needs to expand it, but the dems need a super majority to do it. The American voters MUST give that to them next year, so they can fix some of this insanity. Clearly the court is in dire need of oversight, in the meantime.
nobody I Know
The irony is you cannot force the Supreme court to give you a desired product.
How does a case with no standing ever even get to the Supreme Court? This should have ended at the district court level.
Its simple - corruption by conservative supreme court. It was already dismissed by lower courts due to no standing, but she then appealed to supreme court, and instead of dismissing it like it should have, the conservatives on the supreme court decided to take it, because they wanted to push their right wing agenda into law regardless of standing.
Someone powerful pulls some strings.
Trump judges are everywhere now...
The scotus justices are CORRUPT! No surprise.
Delusional Judges biased and unworthy to sit on any bench
This makes the Court look even worse. Term limits, ethics accountability, we need it.
Term limits on every political seating. Whether investigated by the court found guilty or innocent no re-election. No one should be allowed to be re-elected over 2x all federal and state governments.
These seats should not be occupied for careers or retirement.
This situation definitely shows a weakness in our constitution. Or perhaps it was by design? Idk…no telling what is next on the agenda.
How about a simple competency test? I think 5 out of 9 would fail it.
I don't mind life appointments, as it lets them step above the politics... if they have a limited term, they have to keep that network active, which is automatically damning to their impartiality. However, intelligence and ethics tests should be required, and those with many skeletons in their closets are unwelcome completely.
@@chouseificationWell put. I like the way you think.
THIS IS DEFAMATION, pure and simple. There needs to be a lawsuit against her for sure.
No.
@@kelperdude You don't want to go to rehab, no, no, no. Maybe it's time.
I'm hoping an Atheist refuses her service because of her Christian beliefs. It goes against everything they believe regarding religion. Fair is fair.
@@suzanne9150
The problem with that is that atheists tend to be fair and reasonable people. They would find it hard to muster the hatred needed to act like a Christian.
@@kelperdudeyes, this woman made fraudulent claims against the man.
Shouldn't the woman who alleged this case be charged with perjury for lying to the court and judges?
"Purely" ?? Don't you mean "perjury " ??🤔🤔🤔🙄🙄
I think you have to be under oath to be charged with perjury.
@@garywait3231 autocorrect gone bad.
It is obstruction.
@@maplebonesnope, writing lies on official documents is also considered perjury. I would assume that includes court filings but IANAL
This is honestly insane to me. She hasn’t even opened up shop so to speak for web designing, and did a basic preemptive strike in case something like that would happen that is wrong on so many levels, and she should be arrested for lying and the case should be thrown out Isn’t perjury contempt of court?
I believe so.
And Stewart has grounds for a lawsuit.
And it took 7 years? Clearly she’s not even a web designer!
@@AgentCathy omg yes! Very strange
I agree. This has GOP manipulation and Federalist Society involvement written all over it. The SCOTUS Justices who ruled in her favor are as corrupt as their decisions.
We need to legally investigate Smith's claim, she has no rights to ruin others' lives, Stewart did not even know he was implicated in this bizzare case.
Check out her bank accounts.
No doubt he can sue her for making fraudulent claims against him n
What she did is the same as contempt. She lied to get her case heard. Shame on her AND the SC.
@@jillsalkin7389 lied under oath as well.
Question to lawyers: How did she ever have standing in the first place?
To add insult to injury, Roberts and Gorsuch try to gaslight us by saying “People are making this political!” They made it POLITICAL!
Yeah, but black is white.
Maybe she took it past all other courts & strait to Scotus because it was planned with the supreme beings before hand just a thought because it's very bizzare how it all went down .
Which one on the court is she privy too before the made up facts ??😊
**THEY** made it political. [Get it right! THEY, THEM, THE SUPREME COURT.]
@@carolshouldeen9008Ikr?! It was a SETUP! 🤬
I have nothing but contempt for six of the nine justices of SCOTUS. They are scum.
Any one else remember the judges saying to Congress during their nomination hearings, "I don't want to discuss hypothetical situations"?
A truly (chilling) underated comment!
More perjury from unelected dictators.
The precedent this sets should horrify everyone. Rulings based on fictional events with fictional grievances cannot be the basis for our justice system. This opens doors that no moral lawyer is happy about.
so one guy isn't happy.
@@jamesaugust7498That one guys name was used to to do something horrible I think it's pretty significant.
@@sneakyfishiix8014 It was just a lawyer joke. Like "why won't sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy." The "one guy" refers to the moral lawyer in Morz' post. :) Always room for a lawyer joke!
Not to mention how delusional half the country has become!! Mix that with corrupt justices, and you got a recipe for many disasters!!
Precedent was lost when Roe was overturned. It's not coming back. We changed the courts too late and it's been overhauled by God loving hate groups. These years are going to be rougher than the Trump administration. They'll be the last years if we don't "clean house".
Shouldn't rulings be set aside or reversed if the "evidence" is found to be false or fraudulent? How can anyone trust the court?
This ain’t no regular court, ma’am. They do as they please. In short, we’re f’d
@@brianr6651 Unless the People can do something about it? Is there any way to de-corrupt the Court?
@@kreidas123 yep.....violence talking isn't working anymore
I was amused at the barely hidden snark by the reporter about the woman’s website. 😅
We can't trust the SCOTUS any more. The Justices have made that impossible due to their own fraudulent and corrupt behavior...and now this "decision" based on faulty information and outright lies. The SCOTUS is now a political entity, not a legal entity that adheres to the rules of law. They let their political views control their decisions.
Katyal absolutely nails it here--Article III of the Constitution only grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear actual cases or controversies. Creative LLC v. Elenis should be stricken for want of jurisdiction.
Another fun fact about Article III is that it says Court Jesters keep their jobs "under good behavior" and that phrase is the entire basis of their "life term" appointments. Its a "life term" but *only* under "good behavior" which means taking bribes and committing perjury, both of which are felonies punishable by prison time, would end their terms if they were not actual dictators.
I think it gives this SCOTUS way too much credit to say it is merely illegitimate. It's far more sinister than that.
No one said it was merely anything. It's significantly malicious.
Best conservative judges money can buy. Impeach and remove them
An "INSIDE" Job with an "INSIDE" case. Yeah. That's what the Robert's court will show in the law books and the history books.
I agree..The Republicans fought hard for the controversy that surrounded Barrett and Kavanugh..
What should truly frighten us is that the members of the Supreme Court do not recognize that they are doing anything unethical - and thus do not require a code of ethics to be enacted. (Apparently, when a Justice does something that seems sketchy to us, because they did it, it must be ethical - (shades of Richard Nixon, "Well, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal.")
That ruling needs to be overturned due to the case being false.
Fraudulent
@vangelina09the Supreme Court.
It’s crazy that the ‘amazing reporting’ she did was just…call the guy
Yeah. Like NO ONE, even in the courts, had the inclination to check the guy out? In all these years?
Imagine hearing about a supreme court case (or not) and then finding out you're somehow involved but inaccurately, that's insane
@@GrumpyOldFart2it feels like a case of "someone below me probably did it already"
The standards of journalism....not to mention lawyers.
Has the approval rate of The Supreme Court ever been lower?
@@zonian1966 I've been politically active/voting for 45 years; I'd say "no" to that.
@@enigma12990can trumps morality get any lower
Their approval is going way up because they are following the constitution. People expect and respect that.
@@enigma12990 Too bad for you it's the Independents who will ruin Trump's chances. Rookie.
let's get it so low that six of the republican jerks are shipped out & off the court! it is a sticky web with Leonard Leo.....
I imagine this man has a pretty solid defamation case.
for what?
No, he wasn't harmed by this. That's a small detail and irrelevant here. He wasn't harmed YET till the magats come after him. Hopefully that doesn't happen. Probably won't, since they won. But this is a strong argument for the - not sure the best word - invalidity of the current court and the fascism behind it.
@@marshwetland3808 The plaintiff wasn't harmed; she did not have standing. It was all future projection. "Stuart," on the other hand, absolutely was. He was misrepresented and slandered.
@@kelperdude you look ignorant asking
@@zonian1966 - sounds like the guy lied to her.
The lawyer(s) that brought this case should be in trouble. Everything they present to the court is 'under oath'. So, they lied under oath. Failure to vet the 'facts' is their job. I hope they're sanctioned heavily.
If I'm not mistaken, the lawyer is Jim Jordans wife. She's facing disbarment in another case.
Sanctioned? Imprisoned. Her crimes have cost people actual rights. She should be sent to the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity. The Courts in America are *far* too corrupt to ever convict a christian.
Supreme Court: “Quick, somebody make up a fake case so we can make policy from the bench”
Yep that’s probably how it went…..Alito probably jumped off the lie
Stewart needs to sue 303 creative for defamation and fraud immediately
The reporter probably found the wrong person. LOLOLOL
There’s really no damage to his reputation in the community but there may be malice by her. It’s just hard to prove. Who is this woman anyway? She has no standing either so I don’t know why she was even allowed to bring it.
@@kelperdude right, because she probably didn’t look into it…..
@@kelperdude you look really ignorant as usual
@@kelperdudethe reporter found the number in the case filing and the guy just happened to be named Stuart, but it was a wrong number? Not likely
This ruling should be reversed immediately. She lied to get there. You can't pass judgment of a hypothetical. She and her lawyers should be fined for wasting everyone's time and money. Actually, jail time is in order.
For the Court Jesters as well. They *know* the law but they broke it to push their partisan agenda.
3 questions:
1. I thought it was hard to get before the Supreme court.
2. How can there be any court case if no harm has happened?
3. Could I sue a big company for something they haven't done yet but I think they might?
1. It is.
2. There shouldn't be.
3. You can now, apparently.
It's like Israel wants to bomb Iran because they might have a bomb. Orwellian times eh.
I will almost fall and break my leg and lose wages because pepsi cans are in the middle of a Target isle and im suing because this is possible.
No, you can't....unless you have connections to a crony of the right-wing justices.
No.
This case just illustrates once again what a joke the supreme court is. This court is a disgrace.
Greedy clowns.
The SCOTUS got played!!
Not a total disgrace they could be way worse.
@milferdjones2573 their disgrace is total because of the imbalance and the right-wing activists who refuse to judge impartially.
@@milferdjones2573 I think they meant the Republican side of SCOTUS is a joke. But you're right, it could be worse. LOL.
this case never made sense until now. i wondered if the purported couple was trolling them. it seemed more like the way an anti-lgbtq+ would behave. it all fits suddenly. thanks for digging this up, great reporting.
This case never should have made it to the Supreme Court as Ms. Smith has no standing to sue as she suffered no injury. This is embarrassing that the Court ruled on a case where the plaintiff has no standing at all.
This. I have no idea how it got this far; anyone who got through law school should have looked it over and told her to go home.
Republicans wanted to be able to impose their ideology and remove protections for others against that behavior, the point was to remove the law and they got it with a friendly SCOTUS willing to rule on ideology.
@@WyvernYT I can help with how it got this far; conservatives on the SCOTUS are corrupt as h377!
@@WyvernYTit got this far because people wanted to see this happen so they made sure it got to the Supreme Court just so they could rule in favor of. With cases set before them you would at least think they do their do diligence to check facts.
@@NSOcarthHello !!!
How in the heck did NOT ONE SINGLE LAWYER investigate the subject of this court case? How in the heck did NOT ONE SINGLE JUDGE ask to speak to person being discriminated against?
All nine judges and clerks. What are we paying for when they do little?
fact is the case had already been thrown out by the lower courts due to the fact their was no actual case there. However the 6 bigots on the supreme court decided to run with it anything to take away rights from a group you hate.
Remember when they said that their religious believes would not impact their decisions. Guess they lied to congress as clearly it has.
Some have no idea how much Covid and lockdown have bogged down the courts. I think lit's a bit of a secret, but from time to time you'll hear it's a hard hit industry. Some courts move faster than others. It's an idiots triage most likely, given the nature of justice system, and how it's tied to money and influence; or put that in reverse: the influence of money. It moves so slow, they start having to make stuff up. 😜
Sotomayor, if Im not mistaken, did dissent with the idea that this isn't a real case. She didn't even have to know that the man did not even contact the woman. She noted that the claimant had not suffered any harm, and therefore should not have even brought the case to the courts. That is enough.
They actually did bring this up in the case. The media was late to the party and the Christian fascists on the court ignored it and ruled anyway
That person bringing this to the Supreme Court should be prosecuted for lying and misrepresenting this case. The Colorado AG office did not conduct due diligence on this “case”.
Whichever justices accepting the case and granting it standing should also go to prison.
How did this not get vetted before getting to the very busy Scotus???? Clearly they WANTED it to be a real case so the could create a new discriminatory law.
You are right, this was something they wanted
This story broke before the ruling came out. The SC knew this case was a fraud and acted anyway. Not just the MAGA judges but all of them as this wasn’t mentioned in the dissents.
The Supreme Court of the United States has openly abandoned rules and laws that govern and limit them. Congress threatened to crash the world economy by refusing to pay the nation’s debt in violation of the Constitution. The President is standing to the side refusing to enforce laws and use political powers to check and balance the corruption of the other branches, and instead has adopted a strategy of appeasement to accommodate their lawlessness.
This is how nations collapse. Time to stock up on canned food, first aid supplies, and prepare for the worst of human nature.
Thank you for saying it.
And why are they in such a hurry? Maybe one of the oldsters is on the way out?
You know how it's because they wanted to do it they wanted to make it ok to discriminate Lgbt People but they can't pass laws so they saw this as an opportunity and took it.
The hallucinatory case is totally preposterous. NO one asked this person to do anything and the court takes down the rights of millions of citizens. Insanity. Religion is a 'belief' and a choice and there is no proof that any of it is true.
Why do you want to force people to do what you want? It doesn't work that way.
Because bigots want to legitimize their hate, and a corrupt incompetent Supreme Court agreed
@@kelperdudethat's not even the point here, i personally don't care if she wants to discriminate openly, i would prefer it over accidentally patronizing bigots 💯👀 however, to make up a case in an attempt to strip the Rights of people YOU don't like is the epitome of UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
@kelperdude you need to look yourself in the mirror and say that out loud. It's religious bigots trying to strip the rest of us of our rights.
@@kelperdude... NOBODY forced Smith to do anything. This entire case is a fabricated lie.
This case should be nullified and the woman thrown in prison for perjury.
I agree
How the SCOTUS can rule on a hypothetical case will forever baffle anyone with a law degree and even those of us that don’t. Did a lower court ever even look at it ????
That's my understanding of the legal process. State Court, State Appeals Court, Federal Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court.
I have never heard of a case never seeing any Court and going straight to the Supreme Court.
Also you have to have errors in the lower Courts to be able to appeal it higher.
@@Pinkyjojo29What about what we sea?
Yes, they rejected it
I'm sure this man is lying. The courts would of found this out. If the ruling was different the media and this reporter would of loved it
@@people744 Would of? Don't you mean "would have?" You can edit this. The subjunctive of the verb To Be fits better saying "If the ruling were different," but I don't want to seem like I'm being a bully. I'm not. I just like English. It's my first language. With your handle I'd guess it is probably yours, too.
Calling this court "Supreme" is a stretch.
Absolutely.
I think it's only supreme if it includes guacamole, sour cream and extra salsa. They don't mention if it does, so I agree with you.
The Extreme Court, as per Idiocracy.
Meh, it’s cool.
Going around is the quip, "I've had burritos more supreme than this court."
It sure sounds like someone needs to go to prison for filing false documents in a federal court.
And it sounds like the supreme court failed to do their due diligence.
Surely the person who brought the case has made false statements before the courts and should be charged.
alas, its a conservative political group, so OF COURSE there will be no repercussions
@AlexanderChristopher-qg4kl All organized religion is the bane of mankind and causes misery and death.
@AlexanderChristopher-qg4kl All organized religion is the bane of mankind and causes misery and death. History proves that.
Time for the other branches of Government to check the court branch. This is insane.
I love how these things don't come to light until AFTER the damage is done. How hard is it to look into things before or while in COURT?
I thought that Supreme Court cases had to go through lower courts. This case should be nullified and the lawyer involved should be sanctioned.
Because you don't like it? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
@@kelperdude No, because this is literally on-the-books fraud.
But, when SCOTUS jumped ahead of lower courts, and ruled against Trump's many bogus lawsuits, you didn't mind.
@@kelperdude Hey Mikey! Kix ae for Trids.
@@nicholasbinion8447 nice🤣
The Court should be admonished for accepting this case. Thank you Neil Katyal for explaining there's a remedy!
Impeachment is the only admonishment possible.
sCOTUS refused to make ethical standards for itself.
@AlexanderChristopher-qg4kl
🤮. That was unnecessary and totally off point. Next time threaten the USA with Shariah law, that will really motivate them. Come to think of it, we should be concerned about islamic law neeting fascist law, then heads will be rolling and blood flowing. Do you like that? The christians do apparently.
Great reporting. Keep up the good work keeping the public informed. Good, honest, and determined journalists like you are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your service to the world.
Stewart should sue them big time!! How embarrassing is this for the Supreme Court!!!!🤬
How would that work? Like seriously.
I'd be willing to contribute to Stewart's legal expenses.
Why do you assume they'd be embarrassed?
Slander, defamation, use of person for legal proceedings without notice. False reporting (which is never punished).
Makes perfect sense to me, an illegitimate court deciding illegitimate cases. /s. Wild that so many still can't see that this court is an absolute disaster for American democracy.
Thank you, you are 100% correct
we need 6 cigarettes and six blindfolds!
It’s funny but when the Supreme Court starts accepting hypothetical cases, it gives them more power than they are allowed to have by blurring the line with legislating from the bench
@@AlimonyTaxForEveryoneexcellent way of putting it... Hypothetical cases are quite literally legislating...
Trump installed INCOMPETENT JUDGES. payola. Graft.
I am so angry that the Supreme Court justices ruled on this case without once speaking to the person this case was about. How can it be called justice when one of the parties involved is not even invited to speak briefly on the matter? How can they base a finding on a case that has no merit, and it influences the law of everyone in the entire country? The heartless fall of Roe was egregious, and this has just solidified proof that the supreme court is no longer supreme, and barely even a court...
Why did no one back check this until now?
Imagine the grief that could have been saved if someone just did their homework. The lawyers who defended this case for Colorado are almost as bad as the evil sociopath liar that brought the case.
I agree they all let us down. Fire them all.
it seems that all the lawyers in this case were as diligent as all of humptytrumpty's lawyers
We need more reporters like her. As he said people doing the nitty-gritty work to investigate and inform. Sadly with the demise of local newspapers with their staff of reporters digging out the truth things like this can easily slide by. Support your local newspapers!
and if Trump or DeathSantance gets elected, there will be assassinations regularly of investigative journo's mark my words!
The New Republic is a good publication..They also wrote about what is happening in Colorado school board, specifically the school board of Woodland Park and their use of the maga playbook.." Divide,scatter, conquer..Trump was great at this in his first 100 days"
Well worth a read..
I don't want world news from British journalists. I want American news and reporters I can understand. Sick of off shore everything.
@@1m2rich What are you talking about?
@@suehowie152Some non-sequitur relating to the Guardian.
The Supreme Court deciding on fictional cases made up in search of fictional injuries needs to be a much BIGGER story. the face and name of the petitioner also needs to be MUCH MORE WELL KNOWN.
The real petitioner is the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom-a 503(c) charity.
@@RusTsea196T A special interest group. Just like when in 2000 the special interest group "Right To Life America" was granted *standing* to pursue a case that would benefit the special interest group's choice for president. Bush *did not file* that case. He would have had standing, but he didn't want to be seen as a whiner so he had an ally do it for him instead. That would *never* work if Dubya had not been a GOP because in 2016 when Green tried to sue to force a recount the Court said they have *no standing* because they're not the candidate (and Hillary refused to sign on to the suit). So "standing" only matters when the Court wants it to matter. They are not bound by any law or ethics of any kind. Their rulings are all over the place and reflect less a legal standard than they do a dictatorial regime doling out favors to its cronies.
smith got her 15 minutes of fame, now everyone will suffer for it.
The six republican justices in the Supreme Court are shameful.
they made a bad ruling on a fake case.
How did Mr Stewart get dragged into this? This is truly bizarre.
Great reporting Melissa. Thank you. And thank you Mr Stewart.
Great reporting and interviews, Michael Steele.
We win hahahahaha
This corrupt court has attacked reproductive rights, environmental protections, gun safety, voting rights ... and now blatantly goes after minority groups, even with this made-up case. Vote BLUE.
And are we really gonna act like this wasn't all a choreographed 'case' to begin with? This was part of the Conservative judge's political agenda to push another Republican wedge issue.
Case shouldn't have even been heard in the first place.
It had no standing. But they did it anyways. So obviously they were in on it.
they're CORRUPT.
I live near her and fun fact? She doesn't seem to have a real business. You would think she'd make it easy to find her for the purpose of soliciting business, right?
When was the last time the Supreme Court ruled on a case without standing? This should never happen.
The Student Loan case lol ~ Apparently that's all SCOTUS does now, decide cases for people with no standing
You don't have to break the law to have standing if it can be shown that taking the action you intend would result in prosecution. The state action in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case by Colorado shows that the state was taking legal action in similar circumstances to the business practice proposed by 303 Creative in its suit. The whole Stewart thing doesn't change the argument here. Basically this case (IMO) is a rehash of the Masterpiece case on the broader issue instead of the details of the state's behavior in enforcement.
@grben9959 A lie is still a lie. Alternative facts are just lies. The kangaroo court has no interest in the constitution except for how to distort it for their billionaire owners. And anyone who thinks it's anything else. Is either blatantly lying or willfully ignorant.
Was this aired on C-Span? Can it be viewed? I’m convinced that something hinky went on.
people have the right not to serve others based on their religious beliefs. end of the story.
The business owner and lawyers should be in jail for FRAUD
We need term limits for the Supreme Court because this one is not working for the majority of the American people now they are holding cases for imaginary cases!!!!
Like their Big Lie.
The problem is that term limits would require a Constitutional Amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, PLUS a majority approval by 2/3 of the state legislatures across the country.. EWven if you could find the 17 Republican votes needed in the U.S. Senate (and frankly, you won't find that many), Republicans control both houses of the legislature in 23 states (versus 18 controlled by Democrats). The numbers simply aren't there to pass such an amendment.
I have ALWAYS said that.
@@markpkessingerOne more reason to vote Democrat.
Tell me where the ruling is wrong. Institutional racism is bad and you people support it that makes you racist.
Can't they demand it be vacated for being based on a fabrication ! Also, the people who filed the fraudulent case should be arrested & charged.
Yep, any other decision based on falsehoods and suppression, is overturned by the SCOTUS.
The Attorney General of Colorado can apply for review..
Standing is important!!! I can’t believe this even happened. Who would have the audacity to spit on the legal system like this? How did this not come out sooner? This is just about the strangest thing I’ve heard in years and this has been a strange set of years in recent memory
The guy and his wife need to file charges against the liar and supreme court
How did they not know this whole thing was fake before it even made it to the supreme court?! I sincerely hope this case is made null and void, and that those responsible are held accountable, along with the supreme court itself.
Because it's political and there all for religious zealots.
Christo-fascists don't have to meet any requirements or follow any laws. That's a "de facto" thing, which means it isn't written in law but *is in fact the law* because of how the law is selectively enforced. The opposite is "de jure" which means its an actual law that was passed the constitutional way (debated in congress, signed by potus). There needs to be some latin for "de corto" which would be a law unconstitutionally written by a court. If these Court Jesters want to *change laws* or *write new ones* they should resign from their Court jobs and run for congress because according to that constitution they're always claiming they've read, the laws are to be written *in the congress* and can only be vetoed *by a potus*
This is insane! How can a fake case get to the Supreme court? Whoever made this up needs to be accountable.
If she even *had* a website it could be DDS'd but that isn't even an option because she's fake. I wonder if she's even a real person.
If what Neal Katyal says about “a procedure to get this case stricken from the books…Otherwise, the Supreme Court can dragged into all sorts of controversies that aren't legal cases but just imaginary fights between people and that's not what the court is about” I SURE AS HECK HOPE SOMEONE HAS ALREADY FILED TO START THAT PROCEDURE.
Don't count on the Democratic leadership to do anything. We have one party that spend their time in Congress on fishing expeditions hoping to find something on Democrats while the Democrats see crimes committed in the open by Republicans and do nothing
If ruling on a bogus case of any type, substance, or leaning doesn't say "legislating from the bench," nothing possibly can!!
@AlexanderChristopher-qg4kl Stop spamming the comments
The 6 Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling without investigating whether or not it was true, need to be removed immediately! Those corrupt judges need to be imprisoned for maliciously choosing to be so blatantly biased, and hypocritical!!
I would’ve thought that people can’t lodge a case based on a hypothetical scenario. given that his name is now attached to this case, I would’ve thought that he would have good grounds for suing the navigating other party. The fact that his name is been dragged through to the Supreme Court would be fairly strong evidence.
This isn't even a case. Since when does The Supreme Court rule on hypotheticals?
Well tbh 6 of them are religious fanatics, nothing more hypothetical than that whole thing
Her lawyers should be disbarred. Obviously they either knew or just didn't bother to check their own facts
Hooray for both Melissa Jared Grant and for Neal Katyal's suggestion for a rehearing!!!
With all the reporters covering the Supreme Court - not ONE of them tracked down this man who supposedly the entire case centered on to interview him, when the SC agreed to hear the case? That is insane.
WHAT WAS HER STANDING?! HOW WAS SHE INJURED?! What on earth got her in the door of SCOTUS?
The very fact that the woman who is complaining that her hypothetical freedom is being, or could be, theoretically suppressed because maybe one day she might want to make wedding websites, and possibly a couple who aren't cisgendered, Christian, and heterosexual might consult her about her imaginary services. And why would the imaginary version of Stewart know to ask her about her hypothetical maybe someday service? The imaginary version of Stewart being about to marry a guy named Mike. The more you go with this, the more stupid it gets.
That said, I fear that this theocratic Court doesn't want to have anything more to do with it. If the fact that the woman is only possibly going to maybe someday provide such a service, that alone should have been tenuous enough for the Supreme Court to refuse to heat the case. But they wanted a case so they could make this decision, using their super majority to ram it through.
She is a Rudy syndrome person.
How do you adjudicate something that never happened?
How do you preemptively adjudicate something that MIGHT happen?
Wasn't there a movie - Minority Report - that examined this phenomenon?
Great, we are all living in a Tom Cruise thriller.
Thanks SCOTUS - where's the popcorn?
Case needs to be dismissed
I think you’re a little behind, the case is over.
Oh, but it won't be dismissed, our Supreme Court does not have any oversight remember😅😅😅😅 they're going to make a mess of their country
Sounds like the guy lied to her.
@@usasleft8602 legally the state can have it removed
@@wandagore8400 o& i know right lets bring up fake c ases.
This is insanity. How did it even reach the supreme court without ever hearing from the supposed offending party? And how did she pick that guy Stuart in the first place? Poke a phonebook blindfolded?
What she actually did was to expose the activists judges on the Court. Bravo!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Except that she exposed them too late. Reporters should have investigated this case the moment they found out that it was going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
I'm pretty sure that most informed Americans already know who the Republican activists on the Court are. With the Court's help, she diminished the spirit of our Democracy and trampled on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people she has no tolerance for, but have done her now wrong. She walks in SHAME!
@@goodun2974Why?
Thank God one did..It was not until she heard the case she felt something was off..
@@goodun2974 Umm, maybe this woman's lawyers or the SC clerks should have done their due diligence?
What should truly frighten us is that the members of the Supreme Court do not recognize that they are doing anything unethical - and thus do not require a code of ethics to be enacted. (Apparently, when a Justice does something that seems sketchy to us, because they did it, it must be ethical - (shades of Richard Nixon, "Well, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal.")
Why can't this guy file a lawsuit for Identity Theft against the woman who filed the case? This case will forever harm his name if it's something he doesn't support.
This should be a big embarrassment to the Supreme Court! How does stuff get thru to them!
Neal Katyal is a hero. Finally he explains that the illegal SCOTUS ruling can be OVERTURNED. Colorado AG can go to SOTUS. Should prepare the case now and by October we might have some human rights reinstated
I hope Colorado AG fights this absurd ruling 😢
Overturn the ruling, and charge the plaintiff with perjury.
Why Colorado ? the ruling applies to the whole country. Couldn't every AG appeal ?
@@maplebonesIt was brought in Colorado..
@@CarolEdmonds-pk7hr Probably NOT perjury, but most likely Obstruction and/or Conspiracy.
Was there really standing for a suit? Can you sue without a case?
Thats what I'm thinking. The whole thing was a fabrication for an intended outcome. Magical thinking. But, somebody for sure lied to a Judge, and a jury. Gots to be a big penalty for that much lying.
NO!
There was never any standing. The whole case was based on hypotheticals. The standard to bring a case before SCOTUS is that there actually needs to be an injured party caused by a previous judicial ruling. That's why this whole case was a load of BS from jump. But this corrupt SCOTUS just invented a way to make this case have standing.
How do you get a case all the way to the Supreme Court without going through the entire legal process? It starts in a State district Court, then on to a State Appeals court, then on to a Federal Appeals court. And after that, The Supreme Court.
Am I wrong? Can anyone just make up a story and get the Supreme Court to take a case? If so why do we have all of the other lower Courts?
This went through 10th Circuit Court overseen by Justice Gorsuch. He's the one that brought this bs to SCOTUS.
The first question that came to my mind while watching this was, how did such a non-case make it all the way to the Supreme Court in the first place?
If SCOTUS refuses to re-hear the case, Roberts will have little chance of convincing anyone he doesn't preside over an activist bench. Considering his non-responsive address to the ethical mis-steps revealed recently, he may be fine with that too.
I think they feel pretty well protected. They don't care.
@vangelina09what could we as a mass do to show them that they Don't have the last say on this ? There must be something we can do or have done legally to them
Imagination???? No! A lying "Christian" web designer!!!
Just because they/she claims their Christian doesn’t mean they are as we see here, many counterfeits all over, everywhere high and low.
Ie :public serpents, those in official offices, our government claims to be for We The People, reality they are not. Therefore just because they claim it doesn’t mean they are.
How about " An overweight, bleached blonde, lying 'Christian' web designer!!!"
I bet she was solicited to bring about this case so that the court could bring about this decision. It was a solution in search of a problem from the get go.
_HOLY CRAP!!! _*_THIS DECISION MIGHT BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD!!!!!_*_ Oh_ I sure hope that someone is contacting the Colorado Attorney General to make sure they get this information *IMMEDIATELY!!!* _AND _*_THIS STORY NEEDS TO GO VIRAL_*_ !!!!_
Oh it will and EVEN MIGHT POSSIBLY POTENTIALLY HYPOTHETICALLY reach mainstream media and the type of media these evangelical christian corroboraters are fed as well
Shouldn't someone be able to sue the organization that falsified this case?
DOJ? DC Bar take away their law licenses.
These 6 judges need to be gone.
This is a kangaroo court if I did see one... 🤮🤦♀️
For the supreme court to even taking on a fictional case is insane... she doesn't have that business 🤦♀️. This is a waste of public money.
It appears that the litigants and their lawyers should be investigated to determine if they may have committed perjury. The lawyers should face the possibility of permanent disbarment. The way this case was brought before the Supreme Court, makes the court look like they were being deliberately conned. 🤦♂️
Not perjury, but almost surely obstruction and conspiracy.
How can you rule on a hypothetical?
I have questions, how can you
Bring a case against somebody under perjury and win.. These people wouldn't knowouldn't know what honesty and integrity are if it smacked them in the face. Their whole life, every breath. Every step they take is based on lies.😢
Now think about all of the lower courts that saw this case and how no one on either side, nor any of the judges in any of the lower courts thought it was necessary to find or question the man she was denying services to. Every lawyer and judge at every level of this case should be disbarred and the government should sue Laurie Smith for filing a frivolous lawsuit each time this case came up and worked its way up the chain to the Supreme Court.
Maybe the honestly forgot to do the vetting like Thomas, Alito, and Roberts honestly forgot to report their bribes.
It seems likely to me that they went court shopping to get judges favorable for their suit. This is damming of whole court system.
It appeared in front of Scotus and the "busy" Supreme Court took it right up. SCOTUS CHOSE to bring this relevant. Next we will find out this woman has a connection with one of the Justices. I say we just call them JUDGES from now on. Drop the Supreme Court Justice bull$hit, cause they are none of that.
It seems to me that the lower courts ruled against her; otherwise, why would she go all the way to the Supreme Court? This is wild.
It does seem very odd.
That decision by the Supreme Court should be vacated immediately.
Agreed, it is based on an imaginary case from false witness testimony provided by a proven liar - perjurer. For those reasons it must be vacated.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that fraud?
Fraud and racketeering.
Obstruction and conspiracy.
The court just ruled that it is okay to discriminate against others based fully upon the fear that a person might one day happen to encounter a homosexual. I hope the GOP are proud of their extremist court
This insanity won’t stop until we take to the streets.
No standing, no real injury, harm or grievance. How did this case even get in front of the Supreme Court in the first place?
What a Joke this (supreme court is) only in america!!!🤣🤣🤣
Her attorneys should be disciplined for knowingly bringing a spurious case.
Agreed. The proof is right there now. It was all lies and the attorneys were responsible for vetting their information. They did not. They are guilty of perjury.
When I thought there was no way the Supreme Court could sink any lower there they go again.
Why would this ruling stand, with the case based on false information??
Exactly. She purjured under oath and justices accepted it.
Weres the proof that it was fake..
@@Pinkyjojo29 show me the money something stinks and the stench comes from the Supreme court's right wing agenda.
@@Pinkyjojo29you would actually have to pay attention to know what the hell's going on around you
Maybe you should read the opinion and find out. This case was not based on this information, which was a very small, almost nonexistent aspect of the case.
So? They didn't have standing in the first place to bring the case ...
Isn't there any laws regarding presenting false or fabricated information to the courts? Isn't she truly a criminal at a very high level? It was the highest court, so maybe a crime of the highest level.
"Laws" are plural.
Like the fisa stuff that the fbi did?
Certainly there is perjury here
Not the supreme court they have a case on going with other conservatives who got caught mid roll lying so they're deciding if it's ok to lie to the supreme court or not. The obvious answer here is no but the supreme court likes to take cases that should be automatic no's and say yes as we've seen just recently every so many years they decide it's ok to violate humans life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness I guess they get paid more by rich people to allow discrimination rather then upholding the moral pov of not decriminating.
@@kelperdude FISA during the trump campaign was MORe than reasonble, bcuz there was literally probable cause! i.e actual data showing a lot of communication between key russians linked to kremlin and very important trump campaign ppl including the main brains behind campaign namely manafort who was one of the most imrpotant political consultants on the planet!!!! (he had made 10M on a single contract with the pro russian Ukr. dictator president Yanukovich. Carter Page was a wingnut with serious issues and deep paranoia that got the FBI vERY VERY reasonably concerned about US nat. security re Trump campaign since he was in relatively frequent contact and travel to Russia. and there were other much more glaring details. The australian gvt had the initial info, was the tip off.
Your ignorance is sad.
This whole thing is insane, before it all began! Who pays for wedding websites? Am I missing something?
Sadly you are missing that some people do pay for wedding websites. Pressure from peers, social media and marketing convince weak people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on wedding dresses, venues, rings, receptions, honeymoons and wedding sites. And you are right that it's insane.
@@DarqJestor why is that sad? I'm happy without wasting money on a wedding website. What is sad?.....(did I just wake up with my head up my butt? The whole thing doesn't make any sense, and now someone is saying that it's sad that I don't get it. What am I missing now?)
@@supportvawa2213 It's sad that they succumb to consumerism, not that you don't get it.
@@DarqJestorEspecially when 'Stewart' is also a web designer..!!!
A video instead of a photo album. Maybe even both. A relative paid $30K just for her wedding dress.
I hope that guy sues. SCOTUS is nothing more than a joke these days.
Shouldn't the fact that this was based on a hypothetical render the SCOTUS decision, moot?
No.
@@americanpatriot6484Russian troll.
Yes
Yeah if the supreme court wasn't corrupt.
@@americanpatriot6484
The SC was specifically denied the power to make judgements on hypothetical cases for a very good reason. It’s due to the doctrine of the Separation of Powers. Supreme Court decisions carry the absolute power of law. If you allow them to rule on hypothetical issues, they can be used, essentially, to create new law. That is the role of congress, not the SC.
Do you really want a bunch of nine, unelected lawyers, whose word is law, who cannot be sacked and who are appointed for life making new laws that cannot be overturned?