I forget the specifics but the case you're referring to was procedural. Basically they ruled that kangaroo court the fags ran to disregarded religious liberty (which is why it was set up to begin with of course) but they never ruled on the constitutional question of what religious liberty requires. Now they have, so hopefully the lower courts will put a stop to bad faith attempts to evade the ruling.
Yep the first one almost any court (composition wise) could have made because they HATE it when somebody encroaches on their authority. The SC is gonna decide what's free speech and not damnit.
I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
The question at hand is, “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?” Gorsuch said. “When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” he wrote.
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.
I forget the specifics but the case you're referring to was procedural. Basically they ruled that kangaroo court the fags ran to disregarded religious liberty (which is why it was set up to begin with of course) but they never ruled on the constitutional question of what religious liberty requires. Now they have, so hopefully the lower courts will put a stop to bad faith attempts to evade the ruling.
"Human Rights Council"
Every HRC in the US should be abolished. They are political arbitrators. They have nothing to do with the law or jurisprudence.
Yep the first one almost any court (composition wise) could have made because they HATE it when somebody encroaches on their authority. The SC is gonna decide what's free speech and not damnit.
I see. That's very weird. Seems like clarifying that religious liberty exists in the ruling would have been a no brainer in the cake case. But I guess they can only rule on whatever's specifically put in front of them, or however it works.
Correct. Although you can also be an activist judge and make shit up like Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. You won't be respected for it as Gorsuch showed in this case (copied from YesMovement above):
Yes. Unless you specifically state it in an appeal, the Court cannot address it. That's why, until Bruen, the Court allowed AWBs to stand... because no gun case had ever cited the decision from United States vs. Miller as precedent.