In a case decided late last month, the rightwing supermajority of the United States Supreme Court sided with a Christian web designer, who said that her right to free speech permitted her to deny services to same-sex couples. Turns out it was another case in a history of cases in which the court gave the force of law to makebelieve. And when I say “makebelieve,” I mean literally made up.

The New Republic broke the news.

The magazine found that the person who had allegedly requested services from the Christian web designer had never made such a request. He didn’t need her services either. He’s a web designer himself. He’s also not gay. He’s been married to the same woman for 15 years.

The Christian web developer, Lorie Smith, wanted to put a notice on her firm’s website, saying that it would not create wedding websites for same-sex couples. In a “pre-enforcement challenge,” she argued that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would have infringed on her free speech rights. The Supreme Court took the case, but didn’t require her to have received a real request, according to the Post‘s Robert Barnes.

---

In the case of the Christian web designer, the court’s dishonesty is more visible than at any time in my lifetime. The man whom Lorie Smith cited in her case didn’t know he was involved, didn’t request her services, didn’t need her services, isn’t gay — but so what?

---

Citing “Stewart,” who did not want his full name used, Barnes wrote that “the court filing in Stewart’s name has left many baffled, including Stewart himself, who said he was concerned that the case had proceeded without anyone verifying if the request was authentic.”

We should all be concerned, but let’s be honest with ourselves. This is what the court’s majority has been doing for years. This case was only the most recent case of turning makebelieve into law — of turning rightwing fantasies into hard legal realities that we all must live with. 

To be sure, as Harry Litman said, this is a “bonafide scandal.” 

“On the legal level,” wrote the Los Angeles Times columnist, “it means the court decided a case that wasn’t a real case … On the political level, it means that conservative forces in the country have effected a huge change in the law, an inroad on long-established anti-discrimination principles, based on a contrived story that exploited the judicial system and simply did an end-around the requirement of actual facts.”

But yeah, no. That’s what the court’s majority does. “Conservative forces” in these United States are always, to some degree, working toward undoing major liberal advancements, and whenever they succeed, it’s often due to a “contrived story that exploited the judicial system and simply did an end-around the requirement of actual facts.” 

There are differences between this case and past cases. But those differences are a matter of degree, not kind. The court regularly makes law out of thin air. Usually, though, it’s just not so obvious about it.

---

---

For instance, the court decided recently to overrule the president’s program for student debt-relief. It ruled based in part on something called the “major questions” doctrine. You can read more about it here, but trust me, the “doctrine” is makebelieve. (It’s a condition simply made up by the court over time.) It’s so swaddled in the verbiage of lawyers and courts, however, that it doesn’t look that way, madeup.

The court’s majority also recently undid affirmative action, ruling that the consideration of race in college admissions is discriminatory. It ruled based in part on the doctrine of colorblindness. It’s a madeup doctrine. Americans have never been colorblind. But Americans want to believe in it so much that the court’s makebelieve doesn’t look madeup.

However, in the case of the Christian web designer, the court’s dishonesty is more visible than at any time in my lifetime. The man whom Lorie Smith cited in her case didn’t know he was involved, didn’t request her services, didn’t need her services, isn’t gay — but so what? She wasn’t required to have received “a real request” from a gay couple. The court didn’t demand to see the actual facts. As far as I can tell, she made the whole thing up, and the court, in effect, said that’s jim-dandy.

You don’t need to be a columnist for the LA Times to see the truth of it – that giving makebelieve the force of law is what this court does best. Any normal person can see that this is what dishonesty looks like.

---