The unbelievable daftness of Corey Robin (and James Surowiecki)

And, yes, I do love bad pun headlines!

For whatever reason, Corey Robin claims 303 Creative was NOT about religion. Oh, in a technical sense, he's right. The plaintiff (besides having a fake basis for the suit) cited Freeze Peach, but it was ultimately free speech in the service of religious issues. Wiki gets that right, Corey. And you apparently don't read analysis of past or present Supreme Court decisions. Shit, your own piece has Smith saying she didn't BELIEVE in gay marriage. In a quote-tweeting, Robin stands by his statement. I referenced the immediately above, plus the Hobby Lobby angle, in a reply.

Robin, in a later quote-tweet, chides me for not having read the 303 Creative ruling. Maybe I didn't read every word, but I did read Sotomayor's dissent, per my original blogging on this, where she nails it.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” She was joined by the court’s two other liberals, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor said that the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.

Nothing about Freeze Speech there, not as the "ultimate cause." So, here's MY quote-tweeting Robin. (I added the Sotomayor as D in a second threaded Tweet):

A. Taking SCOTUS wingnuts at face value?
B. As the TNR fake complainant background story makes clear, this was about religion. As does free speech IN THE SERVICE of religion.
C. Informal Logic 101: Proximate cause? Free speech. Ultimate cause? Religious rights.
Off to blog. https://t.co/cD8kMchx1Q

— TheRealSocraticGadfly (@real_gadfly) July 2, 2023

What else is there to say? Well, let's start with quoting the AP piece from whence Sotomayor's dissent, the link above the pull quote up top:

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs.

The TNR story speaks for itself. If you can't believe that is strong circumstantial evidence for this ultimately being seen as a religious rights case, Corey, dunno what to say, other than the above plus "Hobby Lobby" and all points in between, per ZZ Top.

Well, yes, I'll cite Amy Howe from Howe on the Court and SCOTUSBlog, writing IN HER LEDE:

The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday.

Ye gads, Corey.

Yes, Gorsuch talked about "speech" but again, Informal Logic 101. But wait, per SCOTUSBlog, let's go back to Sotomayor:

Sotomayor’s 38-page dissent argued that the Constitution “contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.” Colorado’s public accommodations law, she contended, only bars business owners from discriminating against members of the public based on (among other things) their sexual orientation. It does not regulate or compel speech at all. If a business owner like Smith “offers [her] goods or services to the public,” Sotomayor suggested, she “remains free under state law to decide what messages to include or not to include.” But what Smith can’t do, Sotomayor stressed, is “offer wedding websites to the public yet refuse those same websites to gay and lesbian couples.”

Again, Corey, you always take winger majority opinions at face value? In his own piece, he actually kind of disses on Sotomayor.

Robin had probably been declining a bit in my opinion for some time. I know the late Leo Lincourt loved him some Corey Robin. That said, Leo was a left-liberal, not a leftist, IMO. (Left-libs, in my US political geography, reject neoliberalism but believe the existing liberal project is certainly capable of reform, rather than needing at least partial rejection. Already in 2018, trying to reduce "socialism" to "freedom," he raised my eyebrows.

His "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas," while good, was not blindingly good; it got four stars from me (expanded version of Goodreads review). See the end for why. "The Reactive Mind" got five, but it's more a 4.5. Per this blog post, based on part on the book, with more hindsight, the idea of American political cycles is either now broken or else in the political science version of a frozen war. I still wouldn't call Trump a full fascist, but after Jan. 6, semi-fascist, or faux fascist, or fascist on the cheap? Yeah, that I would. I don't know, and don't really care a lot, if Robin's thought has emerged.

And, I forgot that a full decade ago, Robin came off as a semi-apologist for Thomas Jefferson. I also note that Robin way back then claimed I had misread him. This is "fool me once ... fool me twice" territory, Corey. I didn't misread you. Nor did I misread your stanning for Dear Leader. (Both that, and the Jefferson, were while Leo was still alive; not sure what he said about either.)

And, on the Jefferson, I referenced that to James Surowiecki when he butted in on the Twitter convo. Of course, he's a neolib at the Atlantic, so he's going to say that. He's as stupid and literalist as Robin. He's also an elitist from the neolib Eastern Establishment, modern version; you are, if you go to Choate, chud. You're also muted.

After THAT, Sunday night, I picked up another buttinski, jumping on Surowiecki's tweets after I muted him. I told Laurie McKenna, in my first comment, about Wiki, SCOTUSBlog, Sotomayor, and then to backread and not comment again until she'd done so.

Oh, elitist Surowiecki and academic Robin? If I'm not high-enough profile for you, Ronald Brownstein, referencing Sotomayor's dissent, says "religious beliefs."