But as evidence of the shabbiness of this session—of the absolute invention that Christian right groups are willing and perhaps even must resort to in order to prevail—this inquiry is pivotal. The group that brought Smith’s case, Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, maintains even now that the Stewart and Mike wedding website request was “genuine,” as ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner told The New York Times today (“and called the suggestion,” the Times story went on, “that her organization might have fabricated it ‘reprehensible and disgusting’”). Shortly after we published this article, in response to re-sending questions I’d sent them on Wednesday, ADF sent me an email with a link to a Twitter thread calling my reporting a “last-minute attempt to malign Lorie.”
I asked Stewart if he had any response to ADF’s claims that the website inquiry was “genuine.” Stewart reaffirmed to me that the information in the inquiry is his personal information—and that he’s straight and has been married to a woman since the late 2000s. “The ADF should show proof that the Stewart and Mike in the submission are who they claim to be,” he said.
And has he heard from ADF? They would perhaps be in less peril now to substantiate the inquiry. But no—while ADF has responded to other journalists, they have yet to reach out to Stewart.
lacronicus on July 3rd, 2023 at 17:52 UTC »
How is bringing a fake case to the supreme court not some kind of perjury?
thinkingahead on July 3rd, 2023 at 17:31 UTC »
It’s unnerving because there no good check on Supreme Court power. They can manufacture whatever cases they want to produce whatever outcome they desire. The definition of a corrupt Court
ParkerBench on July 3rd, 2023 at 16:56 UTC »
Seriously, can someone ELI5? How is this possible? I thought litigants had to prove standing in order for a case to be taken seriously. How can standing be established in a hypothetical case, much less one with forged documents (the named client denies he is even gay, much less asked for a website).