Quantcast
Connect with us

NBC SCOTUS reporter Pete Williams: ‘I don’t know what the Court wins’ in anti-gay Sweetcakes case ‘except time’

Published

on

NBC News’ Pete Williams has won three national news Emmy awards. He has a reputation for offering very factual reports with little to no personal opinion. Williams for decades has primarily covered the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Department.

Monday morning on MSNBC Williams gave his report on the Supreme Court’s order in the “Sweetcakes” case, involving an Oregon Christian couple who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The case is exceptionally more complicated than that – including alleged doxxing of the same-sex couple and the subsequent death threats they say they received.

ADVERTISEMENT

The U.S. Supreme Court set aside the $135,000 the anti-gay bakers, Melissa and Aaron Klein of Sweetcakes by Melissa, were ordered to pay to the same-sex couples they refused, and told the lower court to re-examine the case in light of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Colorado anti-gay Christian baker Jack Phillips – which the court had originally made clear applied only to the Phillips case. The Court ruled Phillips was the victim of anti-religious animus by the state.

Now, Pete Williams appears to be wondering about the Supreme Court’s order, sending the case back to a lower court for review.

Asked what today’s decision means, Williams responds, “I’m not sure,” then delivered his report.

“So today the Supreme Court sent this Oregon case back with instructions to reconsider in light of the Colorado case, but none of the infirmities that existed in the Colorado case are present in the Oregon case, so I’m not exactly sure what the Oregon courts are going to conclude from this,” Williams told viewers.

“My guess is that if the state sues again, and it probably will, the Oregon courts will rule the same way and the case will come back here,” meaning to the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I don’t know what the [Supreme] Court gains here other than perhaps time, and letting other cases like this percolate up,” Williams said.

Exactly.

It would appear the Supreme Court is attempting to lay the groundwork for special religious rights that would supersede the rights of LGBTQ people to not be discriminated against.

It would appear Williams might agree.

Watch:

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

New Zealand epidemiologist: ‘We look at Trump’s behavior and we’re horrified’

Published

on

To learn how New Zealand has largely eliminated COVID-19, we continue our extended interview with Michael Baker, an epidemiologist who is a member of the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s Technical Advisory Group and advising the government on its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He describes how the country’s response compares to the government actions in the United States and worldwide.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we bring you Part 2 of our discussion of New Zealand.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump White House hammered for covering up their own economic projections as jobs vanish

Published

on

The Trump White House has decided against releasing midyear economic projections this summer, breaking precedent at a time when unemployment is expected to top 20 percent.

The Washington Post reports that the administration is not releasing updated economic projections that "would almost certainly codify an administration assessment that the coronavirus pandemic has led to a severe economic downturn" with massive job losses that have topped 36 million in just two months.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Joe Scarborough can sue for defamation — and ‘it could require Mr. Trump to pay substantial punitive damages’: Legal expert

Published

on

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough may have a defamation case against President Donald Trump, according to one legal expert.

Peter Schuck, an emeritus professor of law at Yale and visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, laid out the case against the president in a new column for the New York Times.

"Trump’s wantonly cruel tweets about the tragic death in 2001 of Lori Klausutis are distinctive," Schuck writes. "They may constitute intentional torts for which a civil jury could award punitive damages against him."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image