Posted on 04/26/2021 7:17:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court said on April 26 it won’t hear a dispute between Texas and California over the latter’s ban on state-funded business travel.
The nation’s top court delivered the decision in an unsigned order.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in February 2020 asked the Supreme Court to strike down California’s ban of state-funded travel from Texas, enacted in response to a law passed in Texas that allows foster care and adoption agencies to decline placements that don’t align with their religious beliefs.
“The law California opposes does not prevent anyone from contributing to child-welfare; in fact, it allows our state to partner with as many different agencies as possible to expand the number of safe and loving homes available to foster children. Boycotting states based on nothing more than political disagreement breaks down the ability of states to serve as laboratories of democracy while still working together as one nation—the very thing our Constitution intended to prevent,” he said in a statement at the time.
Nineteen states filed a brief in support of Texas.
The law in question, HB 3859, lets agencies place children only in houses with a married mother and father, among other provisions. California asserted the law “does protect agencies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“For example, it would not protect an agency that declines to provide adoption services to an interracial couple on religious grounds; it would, however, protect an agency that declines to provide the same services to a same-sex couple on religious grounds,” the state said in a filing (pdf) to the Supreme Court, arguing that the measure effectively authorized discrimination against gay and lesbian couples hoping to adopt or foster children, which would violate California law.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Because John Roberts.
Is this a suprise to anyone?
Does the new SCOTUS do any work? They either decline, decline, decline or no standing, no standing, no standing ad nauseam.
So is Barrett home with her kids full-time and the other libs and assistant democrats out partying?
Chief inJustice John Robs US. Whatever blackmail this fraud is wedded to may it be fully exposed wide open for all to see.
Roberts & Co. are there to service the Chamber of Chinese Commerce. That is all.
when you benefit from the status quo, do all you can to maintain it.
Very disappointed in the new justices. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett are weak. I expect them to move even more to the left in the future.
I believe that litigation between states is original jurisdiction in the USSC. Am I wrong?
I don’t see how they can deny to hear it. It’s in the Constitution.
I dunno - I don’t think the feds have any business regulating how states chooose to spend their own taxpayers’ money. But maybe Texas and other conservative states should ban government-financed travel to Ca. in response.
They grant certiorari in less than 2% of the cases that apply and that's the way it's been for a long time.
They gave us sports gambling....now shut up.
Weak=bought
Honestly if these judges aren’t going to put in a legit reason for declining, then it should be forced down their throats. Honestly I’m not seeing a point to even having a SCOTUS, Leave it to the state legislatures to be the final arbitors of the Constitution
“Weak=bought”
No. They are weak.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding forcing Christian adoption agencies to work with same-sex parents, please consider the following.
Corrupt Congress is wrongly remaining silent that California is using constitutionally unprotected, politically correct LGBT agenda “rights” to trump 1st and 14th Amendment-protected religious convictions of adoption agencies not to deal with same-sex parents imo.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In other words, ungodly, post-17th Amendment ratification federal lawmakers are once again refusing to take responsibility for their constitutional duty to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights by allowing the misguided Roberts’ Court to get away with strengthening anti-religious expression state policies.
Insights welcome.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya. Like I said in another post yesterday, SCOTUS is useless.
Don’t excuse Phony-Barrett, Kravenaugh and Gorsucks. They are stealth liberals or blackmailed by Wray’s NSA connected Gestapo
I think Gorsuch is an arrogant fool and simply a bad choice.
I think Wray is blackmailing Barrett over her father - a compromising character which should have disqualified her from selection.
I think is either a moral coward or a blackmailed party boy or both.
All the while Trump was in office he was sabotaged by poor advisors on his appointments like Esper, Wray and Barr.
If that were their rationale they would have heard the case.
No. They refused to hear it because the Constitution clearly bars states from interfering in interstate commerce which is clearly what California is doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.