Show of HandsShow of Hands

DGroot June 4th, 2018 3:05pm

Is 7-2 a โ€œnarrowโ€ victory in the Supreme Court?

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

benseth naturalist
06/10/18 8:07 am

Yes it was a narrow decision. It’s not the source’s fault that the reader doesn’t understand the terminology or legalese.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
06/04/18 10:21 pm

The word "narrow" didn't refer to the vote margin. It referred to the scope of the ruling (i.e., it was narrowly focused on one element of the complaint).

Reply
badattitude no place like home
06/05/18 4:34 pm

Okay. But they put it in the title because they know most people won’t get past the headline. Fake news purveyors.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/04/18 1:56 pm

Not in the context of the split, but in the context of the decision, obviously, it certainly could be.

queenb2000 Auburn Township, OH
06/04/18 11:52 am

The legal reasoning that is the basis for the holding is narrow. Narrow is an issue of holding, not the number who concur in the result.

Reply
JudicialJedi321 This is How Liberty Dies
06/04/18 11:20 am

On legal grounds it is narrow. They left the biggest question of the case, whether it is constitutional for a religious baker to run their business in accordance with their faith, for another day.

The only major point of this ruling is that they found anti-religious animus directed at the baker by the Colorado commission. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, they ruled the way they did.
.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
06/04/18 6:55 pm

Jedi ... the Court thereby confirmed that religious persecution is unconstitutional.

This is a great ruling for religious liberty and a crushing blow to the regressive left that seeks to leverage the weight of the government to suppress religious freedom.

This is an absolute repudiation of Colorado’s anti-religious position.

lj74
06/04/18 10:57 am

It’s wide but, the verbiage is very narrow and applies on a limited basis.

Reply
iceberg124
06/04/18 10:16 am

Why is anyone saying it’s narrow?

Reply
GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/04/18 3:21 pm

I didn’t get it either at first, but the linked site explains:

“The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets.
The justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.”

To make an analogy:

Let’s say my child wants me to change his curfew. I agree, but only for limited (narrow) circumstances. I say, “If you are coming home from a school dance, it’s ok to come home later, but this does not set a general precedent. You still have a curfew for regular dates and such. We may look at that another time.”


.

GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/05/18 5:26 am

@gluxford1 ... This is what I commented yesterday, to explain why the ruling is being called narrow.

GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/05/18 6:13 am

Also, I found this. Fox News explains what they mean by narrow. It isn’t about the vote margin, it’s about the scope of the ruling. This has been misunderstood in several polls. It’s not a “liberal spin” thing.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.amp.html

“The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.”

Again, note that this is from Fox.


.

Malekithe Hades
06/04/18 10:14 am

I think the descriptor applies to scope

badattitude no place like home
06/05/18 4:35 pm

But they put it in the title because they know most people won’t get past the headline. Fake news purveyors.

jfish82285 Tennessean in Colorado
06/04/18 9:28 am

I believe the narrow refers to the scope and focus of the case, not how many justices ruled what way.

Reply
RussianThunder Russia and USA
06/04/18 10:48 am

Ohhhh, we were all very confused. Obviously, studying the Supreme Court is back on for next semester.

GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/05/18 6:14 am

Fox News explains what they mean by narrow. It isn’t about the vote margin, it’s about the scope of the ruling. This has been misunderstood in several polls. It’s not a “liberal spin” thing.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.amp.html

“The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.”

Again, note that this is from Fox.


.

badattitude no place like home
06/05/18 4:35 pm

But they put it in the title because they know most people won’t get past the headline. Fake news purveyors.

delaluna
06/04/18 9:25 am

The ruling is narrow because it applies to the specific facts of this case. Based on what I’m reading, the Supreme Court, felt Colorado’s legal proceeding were unclear and hostile to the baker.
This ruling is not indicative of future rulings.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
06/05/18 4:35 pm

But they put it in the title because they know most people won’t get past the headline. Fake news purveyors.

PhxLibertarian Republic of Dave
06/04/18 8:55 am

What I saw said they rulled narrowly for the cake shop, and the rulling itself was very narrow in scope. It read funny but I don't believe the author was saying it was a close vote.

Reply
badattitude no place like home
06/05/18 4:36 pm

But they put it in the title because they know most people won’t get past the headline. Fake news purveyors.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
06/04/18 8:14 am

Who is saying it’s a narrow victory? MSM? That’s RIDICULOUS!y

Reply
historylover
06/04/18 8:34 am

I saw that a few minutes ago. NBC News ๐Ÿ™€ used a headline or title that said it was a narrow victory. I saw it on my news app on my iPhone. Spinning. Spinning. ๐ŸŒช

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
06/04/18 8:42 am

They have lost ALL credibility! SMH!

rons screw politicians
06/04/18 8:44 am

Fake news takes many forms.

ilovepizza
06/04/18 8:44 am

They may be referring to the legal grounds and not the margin. The case ultimately left a lot up in air, Anthony Kennedy is (in)famous for doing such things and he wrote the opinion for this one.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
06/04/18 8:54 am

Caleb, from SOH, is arguing the same thing, Pizza, in the SOH poll. However, usually, when there is a narrow or wide ruling, this refers to the vote count.

If they wanted to say that it wouldn’t necessarily apply to the other cases working their way through the courts, they should’ve said THAT, not that it was a narrow ruling.

This is just another way for them to spin and outright LIE to the American people


..

ilovepizza
06/04/18 8:58 am

A lot of people here are saying SCOTUS essentially gave people the first amendment right to refuse service to gays, which is not what the case did, so I would say there's misinformation on both sides.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
06/04/18 9:03 am

Nacho said they just removed that part from their story, so they apparently got backlash from writing it that way! Lol

..

rons screw politicians
06/04/18 9:03 am

That headline is very deceiving. Most people just believe it. It a game to downplay that the liberal justices also voted with the majority.

susanr Colorado
06/04/18 10:55 am

It’s not a lie when it’s made very clear early on in a news article, and throughout the article, that it is the *scope* of the decision that is being referred to, not the numerical split of the justices.

Every article that I have seen that refers to a “narrow” decision or ruling has made it very clear what they’re referring to. That includes Fox News, although they didn’t use the word narrow in their headline but only in a later paragraph.

.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
06/04/18 11:50 am

I certainly don't buy that there's sinister intent. It could have been worded more clearly though, even while keeping "narrow." For example I think if one said "the Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling in favor of..." it would be pretty clearly referring to the scope, whereas "narrowly ruled" is more ambiguous and "narrowly voted" would rather suggest a close vote tally.

susanr Colorado
06/04/18 12:01 pm

I agree that it wasn’t sinister in intent, PKG, but I think even “a narrow ruling” would still have created the same kind of reaction.

While I think that the explanation for what was meant appearing early in the news articles, as it did in the articles I looked at, *ought* to have prevented the kind of reaction we’ve seen, the association of “narrow” with the numerical split of justices in a news story about a SCOTUS ruling is just too established, such that the reaction was almost inevitable.

My *own* mind went there, for a brief moment, until I saw the explanation clearly in a sub-heading and/or an early sentence in the articles. Not sure why others didn’t catch that, or maybe they’re just thinking that some *other* others won’t follow through and read the articles.

Bottom line: it really could have been worded better (as you stated), but preferable *without* use of “narrow.”

.

PeaceKeepaGirl advance democracy
06/04/18 12:01 pm

Man though was this ruling pretty freakin narrow. There we were all expecting some landmark 5-4 ruling on the boundaries between free speech and anti-discrimination law and Kennedy is just like "don't accuse religious people of supporting the Holocaust." Well whoop-dee-doo.

susanr Colorado
06/04/18 12:05 pm

Here’s what I think is the worst incorrect take-home message from this decision and maybe the way the news stories portrayed it, though: Some people seem to be taking it as a BROAD decision.

It was not. It does NOT give any business owner license to discriminate against anyone based on religious beliefs. And yet I see some expectation of exactly that in the comments in some polls.

And seriously, let’s hope it never comes to that.

.

GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/05/18 6:16 am

Fox News explains what they mean by narrow. It isn’t about the vote margin, it’s about the scope of the ruling. This has been misunderstood in several polls. It’s not a “liberal spin” thing.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.amp.html

“The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.”

Again, note that this is from Fox.


.

susanr Colorado
06/05/18 12:30 pm

Exactly, GA.

That quote was early in the article, too. If you’re looking at the same article that I did, it’s in the 3rd paragraph, but the paragraphs are 1 to 3 shortish sentences long, and the words “The narrow ruling” are at the beginning of the paragraph, so they just about jump out at you.

I believe the same Fox article used the word “narrow” again later in the article, in a quote from someone, in the phrase “narrow decision.”

I jumped into an extended relative’s agitated discussion about this on Facebook - he’s *extremely* liberal and *he* was very disturbed by the “7-2 narrow decision” headlines. I tried to show him what was meant. Someone else replied to me and stated that “narrow” in the context of a *legal decision* is actually the *appropriate* word and has been used that way, so it seriously shouldn’t ruffle *any* feathers. Basically, that they really needn’t have sought a different word just to avoid causing hysterics.

And yet, it certainly did.

.

GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
06/05/18 4:09 pm

4jc, I wanted you to see this. Susan explains here why “narrow” is exactly the right word.

This technical legal article explains it. The article was written in 2014, so it can’t be accused of “bias” on the recent case. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0951629813502709

๐Ÿ’  DGroot asked:

Is 7-2 a “narrow” victory in the Supreme Court?

Narrow
Wide


.

Okie1967 The world is crazy
06/04/18 8:07 am

democrats got their butts handed to them.

Reply