We Need To Talk About The Supreme Court’s ‘Narrow Ruling’

The big news of the day is the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the Colorado bakeshop that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding because it violated the owner’s religious beliefs.

The Court ruled in the bakeshop’s favor, 7-2.

“The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

“Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited ground. But only, as the court rightly says, if the state’s decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the concurring opinion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the dissenters, but you probably already knew that. When in doubt, assume they’re siding contrary to reason.

Here’s where things get weird. Members of MSM are describing this as a “narrow” ruling.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 4, 2018

In a narrow ruling, US Supreme Court gives victory to Colorado baker who argued that he should not be compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that pitted freedom of religion against marriage equality and protection from discrimination. https://t.co/fZqP4p8KLH

— NBC News (@NBCNews) June 4, 2018

Supreme Court sides with baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The decision was narrow, turning on a state civil rights commission failure to act with “religious neutrality."

— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) June 4, 2018

Here are the details of the narrow ruling, where SCOTUS gave a victory to a baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding. pic.twitter.com/Wc5aWrxWAi

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 4, 2018

"There are a lot of questions that remain open after today's ruling."@kateashaw1 breaks down Supreme Court's narrow ruling in favor of Colorado baker who denied service to same-sex couple. https://t.co/CHzjknhICO pic.twitter.com/vUBVaFLKcw

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) June 4, 2018

It’s a narrow ruling.

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) June 4, 2018

Even Fox News did this. Emphasis mine:

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.

Am I missing something here? Some suggest I am.

The confusion I'm seeing in my mentions about what NARROW means in the context of a SUPREME COURT ruling is a reminder that we don't educate the public enough on SCOTUS.

We should have cameras in there and teach people what these rulings will mean for their life.

— Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) June 4, 2018

Good ruling. Narrow ruling. But our fight for religious freedom continues. In America, no government should be able to force a private businessperson to give up their religious liberty. https://t.co/uGoy69Jk1C

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 4, 2018

I am reading about a 7 – 2 vote. Pretty sure that's not narrowly… At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed. https://t.co/vOjX0mOHPf

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 4, 2018

Don Jr. misunderstands the meaning of the word narrow. It was a narrow ruling in that it left open bigger constitutional questions. It’s not describing the 7-2 vote as narrow. https://t.co/x26XhU2vqf

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 4, 2018

I do think it is a fair characterization that the decision in Masterpiece was a narrow decision. The vote was large, the ruling narrow.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 4, 2018

OK…but when MSNBC is calling the ruling “narrow,” it knows EXACTLY what it’s doing. Come one. They’re trying to tout a specific narrative. They’re trying to make this seem less significant.

Narrator: The case was not decided narrowly. https://t.co/DoTaykiUA9

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 4, 2018

PS– she’s a Constitutional lawyer.

I'm a Constitutional attorney, but whatever. https://t.co/OWIs8hpWgT

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 4, 2018

But MSNBC said it was a narrow victory! "The Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple." I guess anything less than unanimity must be "narrow"….

— Bitterman (@Bitterman59) June 4, 2018

I mean, it's "limited in scope," I guess. But even then, not really. https://t.co/X0eTILnNUB

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 4, 2018

It was narrow in scope.

— Kathleen (@katnandu) June 4, 2018

I suppose so. But the facts of the case aren't that unique, at least in terms of which of these types of cases make it to the appellate level. Like, you can't refuse service (because that's ridiculous anyway). But in terms of religious freedom exemptions, it's significant. https://t.co/TfSVZnwwS2

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 4, 2018

This is a pretty big debate. It’s all over the map.

7-2 hockey score = blow out
7-2 baseball score = not even close
7-2 #Scotus ruling = narrow?
When progressive judges flip… that's not narrow.

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) June 4, 2018

The Ruling from SCOTUS: 7 to 2 vote. @ap wrote this as a "narrow decision." 5-4 is narrow, 7-2 is not.

— Bill Hemmer (@BillHemmer) June 4, 2018

What do you think? Are people simply misunderstanding the meaning of “narrow ruling”?

At the end of the day, I think members of MSM know EXACTLY what they’re doing. They know darn well what #resisters will make of the term “narrow ruling.”