Quo Vadis GOP?

[grumbler]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

[Barrister]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

Eddie is of course correct.  Brain fart.   

[Syt]

An interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

It is also noteworthy that the majority opinion argued that enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination laws would result in things like "the government" forcing "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message." Film making is not a public accommodation.

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

I am concerned that these sorts of tailored cases, designed to allow the Supreme Court's conservative majority to impose its will, even in the absence of an actual legal harm, will proliferate. 

I saw that, too, and apparently the court argued that regardless of whether the injured party didn't exist there was merit in arguing the case (or something to that effect?). Which seems like a blank check to bring any kind of pet issues in front of them "if it's worth ruling on." It's amusing when thinking back to the 90s/00s and Republicans moaning about "activist judges".

[Syt]

Oh and:

[Sheilbh]

An interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

It is also noteworthy that the majority opinion argued that enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination laws would result in things like "the government" forcing "an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message." Film making is not a public accommodation.

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

I am concerned that these sorts of tailored cases, designed to allow the Supreme Court's conservative majority to impose its will, even in the absence of an actual legal harm, will proliferate. 

I saw that, too, and apparently the court argued that regardless of whether the injured party didn't exist there was merit in arguing the case (or something to that effect?). Which seems like a blank check to bring any kind of pet issues in front of them "if it's worth ruling on." It's amusing when thinking back to the 90s/00s and Republicans moaning about "activist judges".

I could be wrong in the US but in the UK once you get to appeals court or Surpeme Court level, they don't really investigate or hear evidence on the facts of the case. So the reasons that a lower court might legitimately throw the case out aren't necessarily going to be sort of thing you can submit in the higher courts - they are there to hear the points of law only.

Similarly in Europe, the CJEU isn't a court of appeal but you can see cases that go to the CJEU because the court accepts an argument that there's an EU law point that needs clarifying. So the case goes for a couple of years to the CJEU but once it gets back to the domestic court it either settles very quickly, may get kicked out or otherwise goes nowhere. The CJEU doesn't rule on facts, it doesn't establish or inquire about facts - that is the job of the domestic court.

It may be that the lower court fluffed and should have kicked the case out, but my understanding from a UK perspective is that sort of thing isn't really something the Supreme Court would look at or be interested in.

On the tailored cases - I think that's just the nature of the beast and has always been the way it works if you doing any form of legal activism. Civil rights and feminist activists looked for the perfect claims in the hope of getting to the Supreme Court - I think of the landmark sex discrimination case which I think was actually about discrmination against men in a unviersity but allowed a far wider point to be made about discrimination on the basis of sex. I think looking for a sympathetic fact pattern to try and get to the Supreme Court is an awful lot of what the conservative legal movement does (and has perfected).

But I think it is in the nature of any legal strategy to make change on public policy. I was speaking recently to a lawyer who is acting on a big claim against Facebook in the UK which is being funded by various activist groups - and the facts are shocking. The claimant found she was being put into Facebook segments with titles like "post-natal depression", "LGBT issues", "mental health" - but the whole case is somewhat abstract. She was working with lawyers and activists from the start to build her claim - she used Facebook as normal (as a new mum) and made data subject requests and objections about what they were doing with her data at various points to build up the legal picture. There's another activist public law group who keep losing precisely because their claimants don't have standing so the cases get thrown out at first instance (although they're not really trying to set precedent).

There's a really interesting book that touches on part of this in the US called Public Citizens about public interest activism - particularly Ralph Nader but also the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s.

[crazy canuck]

I am as mystified as you.  Should not have happened.

[viper37]

An interesting detail has come to my attention: the respondent in the recent Creative LLC v. Elenis decision by the USSC allowing for discrimination against protected minorities does not exist.  And the court knew that before they issued their ruling.  The case was fabricated to get the issue on front of the Supreme Court, probably knowing (as, indeed, it turned out to be the case) that no lower court would rule in its favor.

My understanding is that he did exist, but he was a straight married man.

[The Brain]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

Eddie is of course correct.  Brain fart. 

To hear is to obey.

[The Minsky Moment]

The fact that the case was entirely fabricated seems not to have bothered any court in the chain.  It seems to me that the courts should have rejected the case as without merit unless the plaintiff chose to sue that true respondent, the state of Colorado.  Can any of the law talkers here explain why all three levels of the federal courts chose to accept the case knowing that it was founded on a lie?  And why did not any of the federal courts force the plaintiff to first sue through the state courts?

The Respondent was Aubrey Elenis - a Colorado state official, she does exist.  The Petitioner is an LLC which also exists in the sense that it is (and was) an LLC registered and in good standing with the state of Colorado.  Assuming proper standing, a federal forum would be appropriate as the suit asserts violations of the Federal Constitution.  In civil law there is no requirement to exhaust state remedies.

Everything else you've said is well put and I don't have a good answer to most.  Lorie Smith is the Joe the Plumber of wedding website designers, with visions in her head of a parade of an imaginary parade of horribles to be visited upon her in the conduct of a business that is not in fact her business. Except that this Joe the Plumber is backed by a $100 million Christian legal defense fund with money to burn on attorney time and many legal axes to grind.

The case makes a complete mockery of the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. It is as you say a completely fake, manufactured "dispute" over whether someone's internal mental fantasies may conflict with some aspect of state law.

I don't know why the 10th Circuit found standing exists here.  I don't really know that Court very well. or those judges, or their motivation.  Some more liberal judges don't like restrictive standing doctrine - they believe, with some reason that e.g. environmental groups should be able to sue when the EPA is negligent and doesn't enforce the law.  There may be some other motivation I'm not aware of.

As for the Supreme Court, I can't imagine those six judges finding standing here if the proposed ideological outcome were different.  THe three dissenters wanted to address the merits rather than debate abstractions about standing.
 

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

It's the ghost of Joseph, still haunting us all.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-6-2023/mtg-freedom-caucus-ouster/

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly ejected from the House Freedom Caucus.

There's no exactly sure why.  One the one hand it might be for calling fellow member Lauren Boebert a "little bitch" on the House floor.  But it might also be because MTG supports current GOP House Speaker Mike McCarthy, and she actually *gasp* voted in favour of the debt deal that prevented the USA from defaulting on its debt.

I thought it was Kevin.

I thought it was Paul.

It's the ghost of Joseph, still haunting us all.

The GOP may be misinterpreting the message of that ghost of persecutions past.

[Savonarola]

https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-russia-not-ukraine-join-nato-anti-china-alliance-2023-7?op=1

Matt Gaetz is back on the anti-Ukraine hamster wheel and floating the suggestion that Russia, not Ukraine, should be part of NATO so the organization can become an anti-China alliance

GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, who's not been shy about his anti-Ukraine views, thinks NATO could be better off with Russia instead of Ukraine as a member country.

"Why would you pick Ukraine? Why not extend NATO to Russia and make it an anti-China alliance?" the Florida Republican told Newsmax on Tuesday.

"Are we really thinking that we're more afraid of the broke-down tanks from Russia than the fact that China is building a secret military base on the island of Cuba, 90 miles away from the United States?" Gaetz added.

His comments came amid an eventful NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, where the alliance's member countries stopped short of extending an invitation to Ukraine to join it.

The State Department referred Insider to comments given by spokesperson Matthew Miller during his press briefings on Tuesday and Wednesday. During the press briefing on Tuesday, Miller said the alliance "has made clear that Ukraine will become a member of NATO."

"Over the past several years, Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance and has made substantial progress on its reform path," Miller said.

This is not the first time Gaetz has expressed his disapproval of US support for Ukraine amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

On February 9, Gaetz introduced a House resolution calling on the US to "end its military and financial aid to Ukraine." The resolution also urged combatants to "reach a peace agreement."   

More recently, Gaetz slammed the Biden administration's decision to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine. The Florida Republican said in a tweet dated July 10 that he is co-sponsoring a measure to block the transfer.

"These cluster bombs will not end the war in Ukraine and will not build a more stable country," Gaetz wrote in his tweet.

And Gaetz is not the only Republican lawmaker who is against US involvement in the Ukraine war. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who supported Gaetz's resolution in February, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would direct the "President to withdraw the US from NATO."

"They are not a reliable partner whose defense spending should be paid for by American citizens," Greene said on Tuesday while introducing her amendment.

"Western European countries could and should be stepping up their financial contributions to ensure the security of NATO. Instead, they are entirely beholden to Russia, and the US taxpayers expected to foot the bill," Greene said.

Representatives for Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider sent outside regular business hours.

While Gaetz's ideas are appalling (and when coupled with Greene's are incredibly reckless and irresponsible) I'm  having trouble getting past the phrase "Anti-Ukraine hamster wheel."

[Valmy]

I think we were interested in having Russia join NATO back in the 1990s.

But yeah I think a few countries in the alliance might veto them now. Like most of them.

And no chance Russia would want to be in NATO anyway.

[Razgovory]

I don't think most of Europe is interested in an anti-Chinese alliance anyway.  Russia certainly isn't.  It's distressing that a congressman is so ignorance of international affairs.

[Grey Fox]

Chinese military base in Cuba? That's a new one.