Justice Sonia Sotomayor erroneously says infamous Orlando, Florida, massacre was driven by anti-gay hate

Sotomayor dissent in Christian designer case makes false claim about Pulse nightclub shooting

“…Despite Sotomayor’s assertion, however, the FBI and other law enforcement were unable to verify any claims that Mateen was gay, frequented gay bars or even knew the Pulse nightclub was a gay bar.

Mateen’s final selection of Pulse as his target appears to have been made based on the lack of security, not because it was a gay club, and made at the last minute, according to court and phone records that emerged in the case against Mateen’s widow, who was put on trial for allegedly aiding and abetting her late husband.

Mateen reportedly Googled “Orlando nightclubs” after finding that security at his original target, a major shopping and entertainment complex, was too high…

…Gorsuch lambasted Sotomayor’s dissent, saying it “reimagines the facts” from “top to bottom” and fails to answer the fundamental question: “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”…”

Related. Liberal jurisprudence meet liberal environmental reporting:

AP Uncovers Real Problem With Canada’s Wildfire Smoke: It’s Racist

Supreme Court ruling by Gorsuch on free speech. Outstanding.

Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees

“…The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 15–19, 24–25…”

And commenting on the dissent:

“…In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?…


…Finally, the dissent comes out and says what it really means: Once Ms. Smith offers some speech, Colorado “would require [her] to create and sell speech, notwithstanding [her] sincere objection to doing so”—and the dissent would force her to comply with that demand. Post, at 29–30. Even as it does so, however, the dissent refuses to acknowledge where its reasoning leads. In a world like that, as Chief Judge Tymkovich highlighted, governments could force “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” they could compel “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” and they could require a gay website designer to create websites for a group advocating against same-sex marriage, so long as these speakers would accept commissions from the public with different messages. 6 F. 4th, at 1199 (dissenting opinion). Perhaps the dissent finds these possibilities untroubling because it trusts state governments to coerce only “enlightened” speech. But if that is the calculation, it is a dangerous one indeed…”


We live in the age of stupid. We are governed by the senile…

Biden: Race Preference Ruling Violates What ‘Constitution Says’ that All ‘Created Equal’ — Dobbs Gave States Power ‘We Fought a War over’

“…President Joe Biden criticized the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down racial preferences in college admissions and stated that the court is straying away from what “the Constitution says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women are created equal, endowed by their creator” and that ruling that there isn’t a right to privacy in the Constitution and states can make their own laws on abortion in Dobbs is “giving states power that we fought a war over in 1860.”…”

The confused ramblings of an old man. Biden confuses the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, and Supreme Court rulings. That’s before you get to the obviously wrong arguments he makes.

Thomas Sowell on affirmative action…


Democrat character assassination of RFK Jr. is starting. Anticipate the same Christine Blasey Ford stuff. Democrats have one playbook on people they hate. I would also anticipate criminal investigations.

MAUREEN CALLAHAN: I bet you didn’t know of RFK Jr’s appalling misogyny. No one dares ask about his sex diaries – or how he tormented his suicidal wife then exhumed her from the Kennedy plot. So Bobby, are you man enough to face MY questions?

Harvard has already figured out how to circumvent the law of the United States to continue to provide race-based admissions…

But seriously folks:

Harvard plans to evade Supreme Court ruling



Ben Carson:



The Catholic Church has not been doing well. Church leadership is weak and confused with some bright spots.

Vatican Secretary of State Denies Link Between Homosexuality and Clerical Sex Abuse

It sure seems like Church leadership is as politicized as American media and, of course, the bias and politicization mostly goes in one direction. These people would deny the daytime sky is blue if they thought such denial supported their preferred narrative and policies.

Some recognize the wrong direction:

Getting back to merit based admissions…

SCOTUS Rejects Affirmative Action at Colleges

“…Can’t Consider Race in Admission. The Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in college admissions on Thursday after an Asian-American advocacy group challenged policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina as discriminatory…”

This is an important decision. Many woke universities saw this coming and have taken steps to continue race-based admissions policies through different means. Still an important and good decision.

Doug Santo