Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I never gave my own opinion of the judgement since I am not an expert on American law. I was pointing out that the Washington Post did not mean 'narrow' in the sense of the vote but in the sense of the scope of the judgement which was the original objection you had. I then pointed out that they were not alone in that judgement.
|
Indeed and I did not mean to imply that it was your own opinion but the opinion that you did receive (from the paper based editorials) were totally wrong. Even though they were the majority of said opinions on the subject, most did not even bother to opine on the issue. Because most did not
need to say anything about the scope, the rest of us already knew the breadth of the decision.
They were not alone in the opinion, you are correct. They were just totally wrong, which the court has now affirmed, very fast - without even ruling on anything but rather forcing WA to do so.
Quote:
|
Again, not a lawyer but we don't yet the know the outcome of the lower court. The lower court now has to the decide if the cake case does indeed set a precedent that applies in their case. If they come back with the same ruling then we're back to square one and the Supreme Court might have to hear it again or let it stands.
|
They wouldn't nor should they re-rule the same way, the SC
specifically said to
reconsider in light of the CO ruling.
Now if the WA state SC were to refuse to do so, there are a number of remedies available. Again overturned on appeal but that is just the issue of this case.
WA state could impeach their SC justices who fail to follow existing case law though at the state level there are also procedural elements that could lead to ethicatory issues ; civil fines and judges disbarred for unruly behavior.
Depending on who authors the decision then personal and professional misconduct charges could also be levied against that court though it is difficult to do if the court itself rules rather than an individual. (I.e. not an individual but a panel / if it was an en banc hearing).
I am unsure on the grounds of impeachment simply because it is not a federal judge but WA state could impeach the justices, too. (Though that is usually reserved for issues of MT).
Charles Pickering was impeached due to insanity in 1804 and WHH in 1862 but that was on grounds of treason so when it comes down to legal decisions going awry all I can think of is Sam Chase in 1804:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...l-samuel-chase
That again though, was the high court - I can't think of a case where lower courts just buck the SC - it would be judicial suicide. It just does not and cannot happen. Even Harry Pregerson, who said at his confirmation hearing (in front of Congressional committees) that he would follow his conscience if it conflicted with the law, simply avoided unfriendly precedents altogether. He never had the preposterous idea of re-ruling against a higher court's decision.
FYI some states allow for the public election of judges, even to the SSC. Like Florida for example. Now I can't remember which one WA is but it is not as purist a system because voters can recall judges, like in CA - the recent Stanford rape case comes to mind. (Kind of like "the people get a say") In this instance though, I am not sure if WA would even consider recall or just impeach straight away - whichever costs less and takes the lesser amount of time I suppose.
One instance where a judge did beat that kind of a rap was Anthony Kline where the CA commission recommended removal but he escaped punishment on a technicality. Usually most states have such complaints boards / commissions etc and they can or do recommend judicial / civil / legislative remedy etc (dependent on state / case / circumstance etc).
Any WA state SC justice who thinks it is a fun idea to buck the Supremes won't be in a job much longer - it won't happen. Even if they try to worm a way round it they will get smacked right back down.
Quote:
|
If this ruling was to be overturned and effectively said that it's legal to deny any service to people based on their sexuality then the entire purpose of anti-discrimination law would be challenged. In that case then yes the cake case would have set a huge precedent but I doubt that would be the last we would hear of it.
|
Oh, sure - there will be whining every which way.
However sexual orientation has never been a PC under the CRA and never will be, religion is. The two cannot work in alignment, it will always have to be one or the other.
The store did not deny service btw, they just refused to participate in a specific ceremony.
The decision was not narrow, either in ruling or scope - the media messed up, big time. Both because they are clueless on legal proceeding and because their own bias / agenda clouded their (what should be) journalistic ability.
Btw none of that is aimed at you. What you said about not being an expert on American law is taken in good stride and I also accept that the people who wrote those inaccurate articles are not, either. The difference between you and them though, is that they thought that it was a good idea to run their mouths / opine on something that they knew jack shit about in the first place. You didn't - you asked, you listened and I commend you for it my dear.
