Posted on 07/06/2023 9:20:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Our Republic is at risk from radical Republicans.
We keep being told this, but somehow all the threats to legal decisions and legal norms seem to come from the Left.
You have probably noticed the full-court press against the Supreme Court the Left has been playing. Constant threats to ignore its rulings, attacks on its integrity (which, in an unusual move, the Supreme Court Justices unanimously denounced), and threats to pack the Court to regain a Leftist majority.
Now we have yet another direct attack on the Constitution and the legal system from the Arizona Attorney General.
I always predicted that some state was going to tell the Supreme Court to pound sand with one of their unconstitutional decisions. I just always thought it was gonna be California but here Arizona is leading the way. #Fresh #ProudBlue #DemVoice1 https://t.co/jqoa0d150A
— Digital Warriors (@DigitalWarfare1) July 4, 2023
Kris Mayes, Arizona’s Attorney General, has announced that she intends to defy the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative vs. Elenis, and did so in no uncertain terms.
Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is “profoundly wrong.”
Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.
Now if Mayes has said “to the full extent allowed by the Supreme Court,” this would be a defiant but legitimate statement. “I disagree but I will comply” is fully consistent with America’s legal tradition and the Constitution. Nobody is required to agree with any Court decision, and Arizona’s public accommodation law is largely in compliance with the Court’s decision and precedent.
But she didn’t say that. She said “to its fullest extent,” which is another way of saying she will simply ignore the Court’s ruling.
Needless to say, this is illegal, and basically telling the Court that, since it has no armed police to enforce the decision, the state will simply ignore it.
Insurrection much?
One frustrating thing about all the sturm und drang about the 303 Creative case is how dishonest the discourse has been. The Court did not legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians; it prohibited states from forcing people to create works that celebrate activities that violate their moral principles. This is not an idle distinction; it remains illegal to deny service to people who are in a protected class. What the protected class member may not do is compel speech or expression in others.
Religious identity is a protected class. Would the Attorney General of Arizona require a Muslim to make a website celebrating the Crusades? I think not. Find another web designer. How hard is that?
People of all ideological stripes, although more liberals than conservatives, have taken to defying the law in order to make a point, and simply ignoring it when it suits their purpose.
No system can survive this. Of course, the Left keeps on insisting that the system itself needs to die and be replaced, so it shouldn’t surprise us.
So how do we stop this decline in respect for our institutions and the increasing willingness to break the law?
You tell me. I am flummoxed. If state governments simply defy Court decisions they dislike, what other than federal invasion can stop them? I am pretty sure we don’t want to find out what that is like.
She could be opening herself up for suits against her in her personal capacity - admitting she will defy court orders to harass people whose values she doesn’t like?
“No armed police...”???
I was under the impression that the US Marshals service enforced the ruling of the courts.
Per their mission statement:
Mission
The mission of the U.S. Marshals Service is to enforce federal laws and provide support to virtually all elements of federal justice system through multiple disciplines.
I would think that if SCOTUS or other federal court issued a bench warrant for the AG to be brought before the court to answer a contempt charges, the AG would be interacting with several armed police (Marshals).
DoJ control the Marshalls?
RE: I was under the impression that the US Marshals service enforced the ruling of the courts.
Ha ha ha. Where were the armed US Marshalls handcuffing Eric Holder and Lois Lerner when they were held in contempt of Congress?
For all practical purposes, both Congress and the Supreme Court have toothless enforcement abilities. All they’re good at is telling you how you’ve been a bad boy and ought to behave accordingly.
We have now passed the date when Hobbs, Mayes and Fontes can be recalled.
So how bout it, Arizona? It’s been a cool summer so far. Get out there with the petitions.
Is Abe ever going to get his final day in court over his razor thin loss?
Arsehole far lefties are making up their own rules and laws these days. It’s pitchfork time.
Cool in arizona...except of course for the 121 degree day in Bullhead city
Every time somebody in Arizona gets tagged for following the supreme courts ruling they should sue for civil damages and also file federally for denial of civil rights under color of authority.
CC
Yup, its happened to clerks working/certifying (or not) elections.
“So how do we stop this decline in respect for our institutions and the increasing willingness to break the law?”
We don’t.
“The Constitution” died in 2020, when it was used to validate a stolen election.
The various States need to set up to go their own way.
This is more democrat party lawfare. Only use law to hurt its enemies and ignore laws they do not like.
“The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it”
Andrew Jackson
I believe they come under the executive branch.
“it prohibited states from forcing people to create works that celebrate activities that violate their moral principles. “
And the basis of their legal personhood is a sexual act. A sexual practice or proclivity is a person. Right.
We will provide ordinary services to anyone with no regard to race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry. We will not provide services that promote or participate in homosexuality or transgenderism to anyone regardless of their race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry.This would put a lie to the claim that they are being discriminated because of who they are, rather than being denied a particular service that is not available to anyone.
“I always predicted that some state was going to tell the Supreme Court to pound sand with one of their unconstitutional decisions.” Stop and think about this.
A lesbian who won by fraud. 280 votes in that crooked election.
Abraham Hamadeh is the rightfully elected AG for AZ. It’s obvious to anyone open to considering facts.
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.