Well, I got to see DOMA fall, and DADT fall, and now Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Today is a good day.
Now, someone convince Roberts and Gorusch to apply the same "textual" logic to Citizens and Heller - and I think American's can start to regain their confidence again on the SCOTUS.
It is heartening, however, that a couple of self-identified conservatives (Gorusch and Roberts) stuck with their stated principles for once and did not try to legislate from the bench on this case.
I wish and hope this is the turning point when "conservatives" decide to actually follow the principles they shout so loudly about. It will be a turning point, if so.
How does this ruling work with Trump's ban on trans people in the military?
Well, I got to see DOMA fall, and DADT fall, and now Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Today is a good day.
Today is a damn good day, and there haven't been many of those lately, so I am really enjoying it.
And it was a 6-3 decision. Gorsuch? Who woulda thunk? In some parts, his decision almost sounded like "Ok, boomer" to Alito's spitting mad dissent.
And it was a 6-3 decision. Gorsuch? Who woulda thunk? In some parts, his decision almost sounded like "Ok, boomer" to Alito's spitting mad dissent.
Gorsuch's logic in this case was extremely straightforward - and refreshing, in this case.
You can't fire a woman for having sexual relations with a woman, if you wouldn't fire a man for having sexual relations with a woman. Difficult to argue against when you put it that way.
I view Gorsuch very differently than I do Kavanaugh - Gorsuch is very conservative on a many issues, but from what I can tell his views are usually authentic beliefs rather than attempts to twist the law to fit a partisan agenda. On the other hand, Kavanaugh spent a large part of his career as partisan operative, figuring out how to manipulate the law to advance partisan causes. As such, what you get from Kavanaugh should be little surprise.
What I wonder is what impact, if any, this ruling will have on Tump's reversal of trans medical access (probably butchering the phrasing there, don't shoot me). I would think it would be awfully hard to argue that you can't fire someone for being gay/trans, but you can deny them medical care.
Quite surprising ruling. They threw out original intent and went with flexibility in interpretation. These justices are not as conservative as everyone thought, they are "legislating from the bench".
I think Congress should change the law to reflect changes of the times, the word "sex" refers to something different in 1964 then how they are interpreting it today by the Court. I think it is up to the political process to make the change in the law. Congress should revisit the law and clarify what the word means in specific terms today. The Court has created new law and sidestepped Congress, but I guess Congress can come back to the issue if they want to.
Quite surprising ruling. They threw out original intent and went with flexibility in interpretation. These justices are not as conservative as everyone thought, they are "legislating from the bench".
I think Congress should change the law to reflect changes of the times, the word "sex" refers to something different in 1964 then how they are interpreting it today by the Court. I think it is up to the political process to make the change in the law. Congress should revisit the law and clarify what the word means in specific terms today. The Court has created new law and sidestepped Congress, but I guess Congress can come back to the issue if they want to.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
But yes, good day.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
Agreed!!
Ideally, ALL of them should be for the congress to decide, preferably after they are locked in capitol with a 7-day supply of food and water.
If you see the real world implication, however, I doubt the liberal "legislation from bench" really achieved as much as the conservative ones did. Schools are still very segregated everywhere I look. Roe v. Wade was a major gain - but should really have been decided by the congress and not the courts.
Conservatives, however, got almost entire constitution re-written for them. Think how many school-children die due to Heller, or how much the democracy is affected due to Citizens, or a President legislated in after losing the popular vote. You can go on and on and on...
I don't particularly consider myself "liberal". But the barrage of conservative legislation from the bench for the past 30 years or so is decidedly anti-American, per my worldview.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
Agreed!!
Ideally, ALL of them should be for the congress to decide, preferably after they are locked in capitol with a 7-day supply of food and water.
If you see the real world implication, however, I doubt the liberal "legislation from bench" really achieved as much as the conservative ones did. Schools are still very segregated everywhere I look. Roe v. Wade was a major gain - but should really have been decided by the congress and not the courts.
Conservatives, however, got almost entire constitution re-written for them. Think how many school-children die due to Heller, or how much the democracy is affected due to Citizens, or a President legislated in after losing the popular vote. You can go on and on and on...
I don't particularly consider myself "liberal". But the barrage of conservative legislation from the bench for the past 30 years or so is decidedly anti-American, per my worldview.
Sounds like Kananaugh would agree with you. From his dissenting opinion:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment.
Perhaps it's empty words for PR, perhaps not. I guess we'll get to gauge his consistency as he is involved in more rulings.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
But yes, good day.
No it doesn't go both ways. In popular parlance, 'legislating from the bench' only applies to decisions that conservatives don't like. They usually call things they agree with 'strict constitutionalism', regardless of the text of the constitution or the interpretation being made. It's all part of the Republican rewriting of reality . . . where truth and fact take a backseat to what you (as a conservative) feel ought to be.
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
But yes, good day.
No it doesn't go both ways. In popular parlance, 'legislating from the bench' only applies to decisions that conservatives don't like. They usually call things they agree with 'strict constitutionalism', regardless of the text of the constitution or the interpretation being made. It's all part of the Republican rewriting of reality . . . where truth and fact take a backseat to what you (as a conservative) feel ought to be.
That definitely happens on both sides. Perhaps 5% of the country is qualified to have an actual legal opinion on these rulings, the rest of us (including myself here) tend to applaud the outcomes we feel are right and decry the others.
Those with principled conservative approaches to law should be pleased, those whose conservatism pertains principally to social policy and not law will be outraged. They are merely results oriented, and will blithely abandon all their announced legal principles to achieve desired results.
- Mary Anne Case, Law Professor at Chicago University
If you want to see legislating from bench - look up Citizens United. Money = Speech, apparently!!
And Heller, "militia" definitely means every other deranged redneck. Why? Because justice Scalia fancied so, which of course overturns 200+ years of jurisprudence!!
Or Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board of Education. It goes both ways.
But yes, good day.
No it doesn't go both ways. In popular parlance, 'legislating from the bench' only applies to decisions that conservatives don't like. They usually call things they agree with 'strict constitutionalism', regardless of the text of the constitution or the interpretation being made. It's all part of the Republican rewriting of reality . . . where truth and fact take a backseat to what you (as a conservative) feel ought to be.
That definitely happens on both sides. Perhaps 5% of the country is qualified to have an actual legal opinion on these rulings, the rest of us (including myself here) tend to applaud the outcomes we feel are right and decry the others.
Right, but the difference is that conservatives claim that they're "originalists" and that all outcomes that favor what they want are "the original intent" and that every outcome that doesn't is "legislating from the bench". You don't see any similar claims coming from the left. That's why it's hypocritical when the right complains about "bad outcomes", and it's not hypocritical when the left complains about "bad outcomes".QuoteThose with principled conservative approaches to law should be pleased, those whose conservatism pertains principally to social policy and not law will be outraged. They are merely results oriented, and will blithely abandon all their announced legal principles to achieve desired results.
- Mary Anne Case, Law Professor at Chicago University
No it doesn't go both ways. In popular parlance, 'legislating from the bench' only applies to decisions that conservatives don't like.
To go back to the point of the thread that many of you hijacked:
Yippee! Congrats to Sam, and to the others who've lived with the fear of being fired for being who they are for far, far too long!
If Congress wants to update the law fine, but the courts are creating law in this case, and it isn't a rights question, it is a statutory law question, and that falls in the realm of Congresses authority.
Quite surprising ruling. They threw out original intent and went with flexibility in interpretation. These justices are not as conservative as everyone thought, they are "legislating from the bench".
I think Congress should change the law to reflect changes of the times, the word "sex" refers to something different in 1964 then how they are interpreting it today by the Court. I think it is up to the political process to make the change in the law. Congress should revisit the law and clarify what the word means in specific terms today. The Court has created new law and sidestepped Congress, but I guess Congress can come back to the issue if they want to.
Gorsuch himself only claims to be an "originalist" when it comes to the constitution. When it comes to regular statutory laws he is a "textualist", where only the text of the law matters, not the original intent. Don't ask me how he justifies applying one interpretive method to one bit of law and a different one to another bit of law.
Gorsuch himself addresses your complaint in the opinion. "It probably wasn't the original intent in 1964 for 'sex' to include discrimination by family status either, yet SCOTUS has already decided that was an inherent part of it. Or even probably sexual harassment against men. It doesn't matter, the law says what it says and it says you can't discriminate based on sex, and it's impossible to define discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in a way that doesn't revolve entirely around sex." (paraphrased)
Secondly, show me a true "originalist" and I'll start believing that it's a legitimate judicial philosophy. Originallists always apply originalism when they want to, and don't when they don't. It's just an excuse.
To go back to the point of the thread that many of you hijacked:
Yippee! Congrats to Sam, and to the others who've lived with the fear of being fired for being who they are for far, far too long!
Completely agree, and I apologize for my part in hijacking the thread. LGBT rights are human rights, and a fairer society is a society that is better for everyone.
+1Congress could write a new law today stating the 1964 interpretation is what we meant, not the revised view of the SC. This isn't a rights case, as far as US law is concerned.
It's nice that LGBT people no longer have to fear being fired for who they are. This is an important human right.
+1Congress could write a new law today stating the 1964 interpretation is what we meant, not the revised view of the SC. This isn't a rights case, as far as US law is concerned.
It's nice that LGBT people no longer have to fear being fired for who they are. This is an important human right.
Congress could write a new law today stating the 1964 interpretation is what we meant, not the revised view of the SC.
This isn't a rights case, as far as US law is concerned.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Those "Civil Rights" are not Constitutional rights and can be changed by political process. That is my point. Certain rights, like free speech, can't be changed by a simple change of the law.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Those "Civil Rights" are not Constitutional rights and can be changed by political process. That is my point. Certain rights, like free speech, can't be changed by a simple change of the law.
If Congress wants to update the law fine, but the courts are creating law in this case, and it isn't a rights question, it is a statutory law question, and that falls in the realm of Congresses authority.
Sometimes, I ponder the idea that this whole debate over LGBTQ+ rights would be vastly improved by the appearance of a forehead mark on all individuals who’ve indulged in any sort of butt sex.
I think it would really strip away a lot of hypocrisy...
Sometimes, I ponder the idea that this whole debate over LGBTQ+ rights would be vastly improved by the appearance of a forehead mark on all individuals who’ve indulged in any sort of butt sex.
I think it would really strip away a lot of hypocrisy...
Yep.
Sometimes, I ponder the idea that this whole debate over LGBTQ+ rights would be vastly improved by the appearance of a forehead mark on all individuals who’ve indulged in any sort of butt sex.
I think it would really strip away a lot of hypocrisy...
Yep.
Or fantasized or watched porn about it. Or had oral sex, ever.
Whoop! One ‘lil post about butt sex, and the thread falls silent. Anyone else find that pretty amusing?When the other side has to resort to "butt sex" they are out of logic and have lost, no point in going further.
What does oral or butt sex have to do with being LGBTQ? These are pretty normal straight activities to partake in, are they not?
Whoop! One ‘lil post about butt sex, and the thread falls silent. Anyone else find that pretty amusing?When the other side has to resort to "butt sex" they are out of logic and have lost, no point in going further.
If Congress wants to update the law fine, but the courts are creating law in this case, and it isn't a rights question, it is a statutory law question, and that falls in the realm of Congresses authority.
Except the courts aren't "creating law".
Read Gorsuch's decision. He essentially puts it as follows: If you fire a woman for doing something you wouldn't fire a man for(or vice versa), that's discrimination on the basis of sex. And it's fundamentally true. And to put it bluntly, there's no gay sex exemption written into the law - so it's not legitimate to claim that only certain types of conduct were protected.
What does oral or butt sex have to do with being LGBTQ? These are pretty normal straight activities to partake in, are they not?
What does oral or butt sex have to do with being LGBTQ? These are pretty normal straight activities to partake in, are they not?
I believe so, yes.
I was pointing out how thin I find the argument “I’m not a homophobe, I object to Court overreach.” It was a common refrain after DOMA was overruled, and here it is again.
People who get all squirmy about gay folks are actually reacting to how gay folks have sex. Given the increasing acceptance of anal sex among straight demographics, I’m thinking there’s a whole whack of “court overreach” folks who happen to be hypocrites.
Quite surprising ruling. They threw out original intent and went with flexibility in interpretation. These justices are not as conservative as everyone thought, they are "legislating from the bench".
I think Congress should change the law to reflect changes of the times, the word "sex" refers to something different in 1964 then how they are interpreting it today by the Court. I think it is up to the political process to make the change in the law. Congress should revisit the law and clarify what the word means in specific terms today. The Court has created new law and sidestepped Congress, but I guess Congress can come back to the issue if they want to.
The evangelicals and conservatives thought that textualism would solely help their pet causes.
Employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions.
Employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions.
Ah, of course.
Happily, my religious conviction is that these fine employers may fuck themselves, right in their touchholes.
I guess we’ll see who’s religion wins.
Employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions.
Employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some employers to violate their religious convictions.
Which holy book requires an employer to fire a gay employee? I've spent some time studying different religions and have yet to have found an excerpt encouraging someone to do this.
If there's no holy book telling you to fire gay people, then the fear about employers needing to violate religious convictions would seem to be stillborn.
If there's no holy book telling you to fire gay people, then the fear about employers needing to violate religious convictions would seem to be stillborn.
Right. It's totally fine to hire liars, thieves, adulterers, idol worshipers, or murderers, but homosexuals are just as a step too far in the eyes of these people.
If there's no holy book telling you to fire gay people, then the fear about employers needing to violate religious convictions would seem to be stillborn.
Right. It's totally fine to hire liars, thieves, adulterers, idol worshipers, or murderers, but homosexuals are just as a step too far in the eyes of these people.
Lying and thieving (as well as murder) are all legitimate reasons to fire someone. If you fire someone for idol worshipping though, you'll certainly be in legal trouble in the US. :P