Letter to the Democratic Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Web designer case
I sent this this evening to all Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and also to majority leader Chuck Schumer. I would urge others who feel as I do to do the same. Feel free to use my version if you wish, or write your own.
[div]Dear Senator (name):
I write to you in your capacity as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ("JC"
to ask – no, to demand – that the JC immediately commence an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court's ruling in the case, 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, et al., the case involving a putative web designer who didn't want to have to design websites for same-sex weddings.
As you are surely aware, within hours of the Supreme Court's issuing of a ruling, it was revealed in The New Republic ("TNR" 
see
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court) that among the papers filed with the court by the plaintiff's attorneys was something that was purportedly a request from a potential customer about designing a website for his upcoming wedding to a male partner. This alleged potential customer's name and contact information were included with the filings, and it was presented, presumably, to satisfy the Constitutional requirement, long upheldl by this very Court, of "case or controversy," as set forth in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. This is because the principal of 303 Creative does not now operate, nor has ever operated, a web design business, and she needed to show that she had standing to bring the case.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Clearly, there was no underlying case or controversy here to be decided.
After the ruling was issued, the TNR reporter followed up by contacting the individual named as a potential customer. Although the person named did exist, and his contact information was correct, he disavowed any knowledge of having made such an inquiry of 303 Creative, adding that he would have no reason to do so, since he was already married (and to a woman). So, in fact, it appears that this case did not fulfill the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution.
Several things must happen if the Supreme Court is to retain any legitimacy whatsoever.
First, the ruling in the above-mentioned case must be set aside. If allowed to stand, it will open the door to all sorts of cases being made up out of whole cloth by parties who want the court to rule in advance on hypothetical controversies, a practice this Court, including under the current Chief Justice, as long disavowed. You and I both know, Senator, that had this case involved any topic other than one that was part of the right's culture wars, it would have been thrown out for lack of standing.
Secondly, the Judiciary Committee should look into several questions related to this whole affair, including:
(1) Did any of the justices know that the potential customer named in order to establish case or controversy had actually been made up? Or did they know, and decide to rule anyway because issuing a ruling was consistent with their political beliefs?
(2) If they did not know that it had been made up, why didn't they? Why did none of the Clerks take the time to verify that the information contained in the papers filed with the cased was accurate? (These questions should also be posed with regard to any lower courts involved in hearing the case.)
And finally, the Court must be pressured to sanction the plaintiff, as well as its principal, Lorie Smith, and the attorneys who helped to perpetrate this fraud upon the Court.
I urge you, both as a Senator and as member of the Judiciary Committee, to take immediate and decisive action in this matter.
Respectfully,
Mark P. Kessinger
= new reply since forum marked as read
Should be a letter to all media but they don't GAF.
I agree with the fraud claim, but since most of the Food Court are frauds, they might actually LIKE fraud.
Excellent work. Keep after them.
It's the nature of fraudsters to push harder with every scam that they get away with until the hammer falls. Always blaming someone else.
IMO
