Thread by @AndrewLSeidel

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is about to hear argument in a case that might weaponinze religious freedom. Not only could it make "because god" a license to discriminate, it might also give discriminating religious orgs a right to contract with the government to provide services.

This case is not about faith, but whether adhering one particular brand of conservative Christianity is right that Trump's all others, including the rights of other Americans. This is about codifying Christian privilege in the Constitution.

The goal is to rewrite or redefine the Constitution so that it creates two classes of people: Christians and everyone else. Or to be more accurate, the right kind of conservative Christian, and everyone else.

Oral arguments in the Fulton v. Philadelphia case will be on CSPAN here: c-span.org/video/?471183-…

@SCOTUSblog coverage is here: scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…

You're going to hear a lot about the Smith case from 1990. It's an important case that but one that has been distorted. Here's what happened in Smith.

Two guys, one white and one Native American, were drug counselors. They signed a code of conduct saying, as drug counselors...

...they wouldn't use drugs. They used peyote in a Native American Church ritual. They were given chance to get counseling (both were addicts), both declined, both were fired.

Drug counselors were fired for using drugs.

They didn't challenge the firing as discrimination. Nope.

Because they were fired for cause, the state denied them unemployment compensation. That is what they challenged. Up to SCOTUS

The Supreme Court said, Scalia writing, said no: drugs counselors who are fired for doing drugs, even for religious reasons, are fired for cause. No $.

Sotomayor is just a brilliant jurist. It's frankly absurd that people like Alito and Kavanaugh are considered in her league.

Sotomayor asks what would prevent "religious freedom" from being a license to discriminate against an interracial couple.

Every time we see a license to discriminate case and the justices ask to distinguish racial discrimination, nobody has a good answer.

Kagan is now asking a hypothetical that is basically Smith, but in a prison contracting with the state context.

Justice* Kanabeer is up now.

I will never get used to this entitled, partisan presence on the court. (I believe Dr. Ford.)

He's just arguing the case for the Catholic org's lawyer and then letting her pontificate. Must be nice.

Now Barrett is up.

"What should we replace Smith with?"

"If we overrule Smith, or frankly if we didn't..." then puts it in interracial marriage hypo.

Again, nobody has a satisfactory answer: race is just different is the go to ( = LGBTQ discrimination is ok, racial is not)

Sotomayor brings it back to race. Again, she says it's not because race is different or important, but because the discrimination creates a stigma and the state has an interest in removing that stigma.

"Are you diminishing that interest?"

Gov't says no, but LGBTQ? Meh.

Now Kagan is asking about the interest the state has in ending gender discrimination.

Flat out question: Is it a compelling state interest to eradicate discrimination against LGBTQ?

The government essentially refuses to answer. Wow. And now talking over Kagan. Unreal.

Kagan now asks, are you saying ending racial discrimination is "super compelling," clearly facetiously as this is not a standard, but the government jumps on it to agree.

Illegitimate Kanabeer is up and asking the government softball which the attorney grabbed at like a drowning man grasping a lifeline. Palpable relief.

Barrett up again.

Finally hearing from the side that should win.

But the courts are packed. #UnfuckTheCourt

.@neal_katyal is arguing that this is all different because the gov't is contracting with entities for services: Catholic org (and others) are there to expand the pool of possible parents. Stage 1.

Not to place children with families. Stage 2. Which requires some discernment.

Katyal skillfully turned Thomas's question against him, saying Thomas was correct and eviscerating the question. I'll go relisten to that one after.

Alito is just arguing the Catholic services side. He's angry that "the old-fashioned view of marriage" is old fashioned. It. Is. Bigoted.

Katyal keeps hammering how ridiculous it is to claim that the city is discriminating against Catholic Services when they pay it $26million each year for services.

Justice* Kanabeer thinks that he's smart. In this company, he'll elevate the discourse he says. Now rambling about free exercise and discrimination. He wants win/win answers. That's not what happened, he says.

Pssst, privileged dude, those discriminated against don't win.

Katyal parries saying that this will open up religions to discriminate against religion. Right kind of Christian will exclude wrong kind. This is a good answer and a testament to the success of state/church separation in America. As always, religious right arg is shortsighted.

Barrett has brought abortion into this.

She's going to write the opinion that overturns Roe in a weak attempt to insulate it from criticism as "anti-woman," seems to me that she's eager to go.

Been searching for the appropriate Barrett moniker: Amy Covid Barrett? The Infectious ACB? (hell no, too close).

@AngryBlackLady provides "Justice* Kingdom of God"
(J*KoG)

https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1324024519481159682

Breyer finally asks a good question: Where does it end? If religion is a guaranteed right to exempt oneself from the law, how can we have any government in such circumstances?

SCOTUS identified this back in 1878:

Again, Sotomayor is the crown jewel of this court.

Justice* Kanabeer does his aww-shucks-thanks-everyone thing. Still a douche.

Now he's arguing the Catholic services side. Again.

He really doesn't belong on the court.

Barrett asks where in law the idea comes from that religion is never a right to harm another person. Better question, why would religion ever be a license to violate the rights of others? How can your religious belief be a right to hurt someone else?

Just nonsense.

Justice* Kingdom of God now on to racial discrimination. Again trying to draw the impossible line.

If LGBTQ discrimination is permitted in the name of god, so is racial discrimination (and this was decided long ago: it ain't.)