THERE’S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL | Christie Takes Sports Betting To SCOTUS | Save Room For Tomorrow’s Big Fat Cake Case
December 4, 2017
LET US EAT CAKE
|The justices tomorrow will hear a dispute that pits free speech and religious rights against equality. It’s the now-famous case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The argument will be the first full-scale test of gay rights since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015. The case has received enormous attention, with 100 amicus briefs filed and folks camping out to watch the arguments since Friday afternoon.
ON THAT NOTE
|Americans don’t tend to do well with lines. And because Supreme Court arguments aren’t rides on the Matterhorn or Indiana Jones (my personal fav), Fix the Court wants to remind us that there’s another way for more citizens to appreciate and access the nation’s highest court. In fact, there are lots of ways to improve access, and some are as simple as same-day audio. Read the full list here.
TOP-ED
|From the cake-maker himself, the man behind tomorrow’s Supreme Court Masterpiece Cakeshop case, JACK PHILLIPS has an op-ed in USA Today in which he details his reasoning for refusing to make a cake for the same-sex couple. “What I design is not a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration. In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.”
PUT YOUR MONEY ON ME
|Today the justices hear arguments in a case that is predicted to allow sports betting for any state that wants it. Richard Wolf with USA Today reports on the case and notes that this might be GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE’S final shot at a little redemption.
KING KENNEDY
|Sam Baker with Axios notes that tomorrow’s cake case is alllll about JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY. Read his breakdown of the case and get smart on the issues before justices hear arguments.
ED BOARD OVERTURE ON SOPHIE'S CHOICE
|“Equality and human dignity, are what the cake shop case comes down to.” That’s the Editorial Board of The New York Times weighing in on tomorrow’s big fat case, caked in meaning and consequence. NYT: “Tuesday’s case will almost surely be decided by JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, the court’s perennial swing vote. This time, the split he faces is not only among the other eight justices, but also within himself, as the author of landmark decisions supporting both gay rights and free speech. Even in his emotional 2015 opinion legalizing same-sex marriage, he noted that the view of marriage as a ‘union of man and woman’ is held ‘in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.’ This need not be a Sophie’s choice. Justice Kennedy can conclude that MR. PHILLIPS is a reasonable and sincere person, and still decide that businesses may not disregard anti-discrimination laws by cloaking themselves in the First Amendment.”
NO FOR NOW
|The Supreme Court today declined to step into a case out of Houston, forcing a Texas court to have to rule in a lawsuit from social conservatives looking to block spousal benefits for gay city employees. The decision could then be appealed once more for a SCOTUS weigh-in.
THE SPORT OF POLITICS
|“Sports has long been the place politicians go to curry favor with constituents. They show up to games for a live shot on the Jumbotron or to rub elbows with athletes to affirm their regular-guy bona fides.” It’s a tactic long used in the political arena to drum up support with some good old fashioned American fun as the backdrop. And that’s exactly what New Jersey GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE is doing with today’s Supreme Court case that could legalize sports betting. Kevin Draper and Nick Corasaniti with The New York Times report Governor Christie comes to Washington today in his second and final term, which has been “marred by scandals and plunging popularity.” But there’s no crying in baseball, and Christie is ready to go out swinging.
THE BERNINI OF BUTTERCREAM
|In The New York Times, Steve Sanders opines that JACK PHILLIPS should lose his case before the high court noting, “Mr. Phillips might have a legitimate right to refuse to make a cake carrying certain words or images he finds offensive, just as an African-American baker could refuse to decorate something with a white-power symbol. But that is not this case. He refused service to the gay couple before they even talked about any design.”
GOT NO FEAR FOR THE UNDERDOG, THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times covers MR. FANE LOZMAN, a self-proclaimed “persistent and tenacious underdog” which Liptak says is something of an understatement. Lozman won his first Supreme Court case in 2013 and now he’s coming back to the Marble Palace for yet another case involving the same Florida city, Riviera Beach.
SCOTUS VIEWS
A Baker's First Amendment Rights
The New York Times“Our point is not that forcing people to sell a product or service for an event always compels them to endorse the event. It’s that forcing them to create speech celebrating the event does. And it’s well-established that First Amendment ‘speech’ includes creative work (‘artistic speech’) ranging from paintings to video games.”
The Supreme Court Takes Up Sports Betting
The Wall Street Journal“It’s a good bet that some form of nationwide legal betting on sports is coming. The only question is when and how.”
Let Us Buy Cake
The New York Times“If you have good cake at your wedding, I will send you a handwritten thank-you note every year. If you have bad wedding cake, I will complain about you with my dying breath. And God help the baker who comes between me and my cake.”
OTHER NEWS
Fight Over Trump Travel Restrictions Back To Appeals Courts
The Associated Press“On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Seattle on the government’s appeal of the Hawaii judge’s ruling. The panel has already narrowed that decision to allow the administration to bar travelers who do not have a ‘bona fide’ relationship with people or organizations already in the U.S. — an approach that echoed the Maryland judge’s ruling as well as an earlier travel ban decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.”