* Erik’s Editorial: The Guilty Parties Who Put American Democracy At Risk In The Name Of Donald Trump

US White House upside down (public domain).

I do not fault stupid people for making the stupid decision to elect Donald Trump in 2016.

I do fault smart people for making stupid decisions. These include:

1. Senators who voted to acquit Donald Trump in his no-witnesses-allowed impeachment trial, including primarily Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell:

* Impeachment of Donald Trump (2020-02-05)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Acquittal

* Mitch McConnell (2020-02-05)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell#Impeachment_trial

2. Members of the GOP who voted to disenfranchise voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – before, during, and AFTER the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – including Paul Gosar (AZ-04), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jody Hice (R–GA-10), Mo Brooks (R–AL-05), Scott Perry (R–PA-10), Josh Hawley (R–MO), and Louie Gohmert (R–TX-01).

* 2021 Storming Of The United States Capitol (2021-01-06)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol

* 2020 United States Presidential Election Electoral College Count (2021-01-06 – 2021-01-07)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_Electoral_College_count

3. Donald Trump’s cabinet, who could have invoked the 25th Amendment to remove POTUS at any time:

* Cabinet Of Donald Trump (2017-01-21 – PRESENT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

4. Social media, including especially Facebook and Twitter, for allowing their social networks to be used as platforms for hate speech.

* Donald Trump On Social Media (2017-01-21 – PRESENT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_on_social_media#2021

5. Mainstream media, including especially CNN (on the left) and Fox News (on the right) for not doing their jobs – asking questions until they get answers – and allowing POTUS to lie unchecked.

* Veracity Of Statements By Donald Trump (2017-01-21 – PRESENT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

6. Lawmakers at all levels, for failing to fix bad laws and for failing to enact good laws. Changes that must be made going forward include:

Limiting POTUS power:

  • Executive order power must be limited.
  • All cabinet members (acting/interim/actual) must be confirmed by Senate.
  • Treaties and tariffs must be the role of Congress so that POTUS cannot engage in trade wars.
  • War Powers Act must be updated to limit POTUS power to deploy the military.
  • Special Counsel Act must be updated to make clear that POTUS cannot fire special counsel.

Writing better and new laws:

  • Impeachment Act of 2021, to define how impeachment is conducted, including the requirement to have witnesses.
  • Follow the lead of The Restatements Of The Law project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restatements_of_the_Law) and codify major SCOTUS cases, including especially Roe v. Wade.
  • Fix the Census.
  • Fix immigration.
  • Fix SCOTUS processes, such as limiting appointments to 2 per POTUS with the number of SCOTUS justices fixed at the number of Federal Circuits (currently 13).
  • Election reform, including who is qualified to run for POTUS and that tax forms must be disclosed to do so.

Just to name a few.

Stupid people, bad laws, and lies got us into this mess.

Smart people, good laws, and the truth can get us out of this mess.

LAW >> MAN.

#FailedPols
http://www.failblog.com/

What Does the “Same-Sex Wedding Cake Decision” Mean?

How will the Supreme Court’s recent “same-sex wedding cake” decision impact businesses and their potential clients in the future? Some see the ruling as a restrictive blow to the LGBTQ community, while others see it as a victory for the freedoms of expression and religion. In reality, this particular judgment in favor of the baker who refused to create a same-sex wedding cake for a gay couple probably changes very little for either side.

In 2012, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop of Colorado to create a wedding cake for them. The bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, refused, saying that it would violate his religious beliefs to support or take part in a same-sex wedding.

Mullins and Craig made a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission ruled that Phillips and his bakery were in violation of Colorado law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Colorado State Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s decision.

Following the ruling, Jack Phillips appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Phillips argued that being required to use his artistic talent in support of same-sex marriage violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Phillips also argued that, because of his religious beliefs, requiring him to participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding was a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

In a decision that surprised many, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. But the court’s judgment should not cause us to make assumptions about what could happen in the future if another business, such as a bakery, refuses services to a gay couple, such as, say, making a same-sex wedding cake.

Do businesses now have the right to refuse gay clientele?

Following news of the same-sex wedding cake ruling by the Supreme Court, social media lit up with photos of businesses displaying signs that declared “gays not welcome” and similar sentiments. Those who oppose not only same-sex marriage, but also the LGBTQ community, felt justified and safe to proclaim their bigotry out loud.

But the Supreme Court ruling does not grant businesses the right to refuse gay clientele, and it doesn’t grant them the right to refuse to bake a same-sex wedding cake. The Supreme Court made it clear that its ruling was not to decide the question of whether people have the general right to refuse to serve LGBTQ customers based on religious objections.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Supreme Court’s decision, stated “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” saying further that “religious protections do not generally extend to business owners refusing to provide equal access to goods and services.”

Why did the Supreme Court rule the way it did?

Though Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were found by the Colorado State Supreme Court to be in violation of state laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the case from a different angle. It found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had handled the case unconstitutionally, in an unfair and biased manner hostile to religion. Remarks from at least one commissioner showed an inability by the commission to honor Phillip’s constitutional right to a fair and neutral hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop did not clearly address either of Phillips’ arguments that his freedoms of speech and religion would be violated if he were ordered to create a same-sex wedding cake. Consequently, similar cases in the future will need to be decided apart from the ruling made here.

Why does the ACLU consider this a victory, of sorts?

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said, “The Court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people. The Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all.”

The recent “same-sex wedding cake” ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t provide guidance as to whether artistic expression in the form of food creation is considered free expression. Neither does it advise whether it is a violation of freedom of religion to require a baker to make a same-sex wedding cake when it goes against his or her religious convictions. But it also does not provide any legal ammunition for those business owners who would mistake the ruling for permission to discriminate or refuse services based on sexual orientation. The next bakery owner who refuses to bake a same-sex wedding cake under similar circumstances is likely to find himself or herself in a similar legal position, which will be judged separately from this case.

What You Should Know About The Supreme Court’s Wedding Cake Decision (HBO) | VICE News [2018-06-05]

U.S. Supreme Court sides with baker in same-sex wedding cake case |
Atlanta Journal-Constitution [2018-06-04]