Fresh off his landmark victory at the Supreme Court in the “Independent State Legislatures” case in which Republicans sought to strip state and federal courts of their oversight of State Legislatures actions to change election laws – perhaps to the point where they can overturn the will of voters in casting electoral votes – former Obama Solicitor General Neal Katyal appeared on Michael Steele’s MSNBC show today to assert that in light of new evidence that the Colorado web designer who brought the 303 Creative case, and who in fact does not design web-sites, willfully misrepresented the basic facts of her complaint, that the Attorney General of Colorado can force SCOTUS to rehear matter.
“Based upon new evidence that a landmark Supreme Court case on religious and 1st Amendment rights was based upon a bogus claim, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal claimed that Colorado’s attorney general has a duty to ask the court to rehear the case and that a justice on the court could also ask the court to review the new information.
Speaking with fill-in host Michael Steele, the legal expert cited a report from the New Republic that website designer Lorie Smith made the claim that, “I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage—the very story He is calling me to promote,” which she bolstered by claiming she had received an inquiry from a same-sex couple named Stewart and Mike.“
However, upon being contacted by the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant, Stewart stated no such thing had happened and that he was not gay, was married to a woman and happens to be a website designer himself.
With that in mind, and after host Steele said everything about the case and how the conservative majority handled it “reeks,” Katyal suggested there is a legitimate reason for the court to revisit their controversial ruling.“
Talk about having no standing. Lorie Smith, who has never designed a wedding website for any couple – straight or gay – is now shown to have never been approached to do so for the client on which the complaint and case are based.
Watch Neal square up this cheese ball and hit it out of the park:
Pardon the mixing of metaphors, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser but the ball is now in your court.
What some others are thinking:
Theoretical Lawyer here. I'll pretend I have a law license, if you pretend you have a case. We'll invent some fake religious fear to sue someone about. We'll take this fictional lawsuit straight to SCOTUS, where 6 people pretend they are honest ethical judges. Fix is In, We Win.
— Bryan Cooper…😎 (@fbcooper1) July 2, 2023
That’s the gist of it.
Holy shit. The whole thing was based on that one Adam Sandler movie. pic.twitter.com/s4VZWU0fr0
— Lyle Scout (@fartyowls1) July 2, 2023
I can't believe this incident didn't even happen.
— Tabitha Stevens8 (@TabithaStevens8) July 2, 2023
I'm thinking of a right just now my great great grandson might be denied, sometime in the future. Can I get a SCOTUS decision?
— Rand Johnson (@2ANDVS) July 2, 2023
Probably… if you gift enough to The Heritage Foundation.
I’ve seen several news reports that she only wanted to know what her rights would be IF she faced this situation. Kind of a beta test. I thought that was pretty outrageous. I’d love to know if she really had any standing in any court of law if no specific conflict was faced.
— Jan (@madamejanrenee) July 2, 2023
— Lumpy_Space_Prince (@LumpySpaceTim) July 2, 2023
The conservatives the Robert’s Court have no shame,it is true, but if this malfeasance becomes widely enough known they may have to reopen the case.
And perhaps there is some merit in the argument that a creative should not be forced to sell his craft to further a cause he or she does not agree with, I certainly would not want to write or do portraiture for a Nazi.
Not that the two are remotely the same, but you get my drift.
It’s a complex issue.
But we deserve a case based in reality to be heard by the court before they render a judgement.
Let’s wait until an actual gay couple wants a homophobe to design their wedding web-sight, or a Nazi wants me to write for them to decide this matter.