SaysWho? Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts and Gorsuch voted in favor of LGBT. All dissenters were conservatives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Basically Kavanaugh being a giant piece of shit wasn't wrong. The decision also includes transgendered employees as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Fantastic news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Definitely good news! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazatron Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 "I like beer, I hate gays." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 It's funny considering how fucked this country is right now that it would be substantially even more fucked if Republicans weren't horrendous at appointing SCOTUS judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 28 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: i mean this should be a given on any of the decisions being made. thats why we are so surprised when a good one actually happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 8 minutes ago, Firewithin said: i mean this should be a given on any of the decisions being made. thats why we are so surprised when a good one actually happens Yeah but Roberts has a track record of tossing out a decent decision to try to give himself cover for a more important disastrous one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point: Quote The political branches are well aware of this issue. In 2007, the U. S. House of Representatives voted 235 to 184 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, the U. S. Senate voted 64 to 32 in favor of a similar ban. In 2019, the House again voted 236 to 173 to outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Although both the House and Senate have voted at different times to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the two Houses have not yet come together with the President to enact a bill into law. The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty. The Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.”But we are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.” The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view. Sexual orientation is not sex. Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Anyone going to read the dissent? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 10 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Anyone going to read the dissent? Apparently Alito included a fuckton of scans of government forms in his dissent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Interesting perspective in part on why CJR may have joined the majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 The meltdown is just *chef's kiss* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: The meltdown is just *chef's kiss* Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Alito being mad that Gorsuch apparently isn't Scalia is like wtf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 2 hours ago, mclumber1 said: I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point: The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view. Sexual orientation is not sex. Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation. Outside of some weird hypothetical that has never been witnessed in reality, it is impossible to extricate sex from discrimination concerning sexual orientation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 2 hours ago, mclumber1 said: I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point: The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view. Sexual orientation is not sex. Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation. I think he meant to write "fire Bill" not "fire Chuck" but this is a really great distillation of it, from the thread @b_m_b_m_b_m posted: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 58 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Interesting perspective in part on why CJR may have joined the majority It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said: It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation". SCOTUS getting super woke with their ‘sexual orientation is a social construct’ ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said: It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation". It does seem to be on line with "the right thing for the wrong reason" a la the Obamacare decisions, for what that's worth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexy_shapiro Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Awesome news! I wasn’t optimistic about this ruling but this is great. How does this affect the Trump administration order from Friday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said: Awesome news! I wasn’t optimistic about this ruling but this is great. How does this affect the Trump administration policy from Friday? It probably doesn't have an immediate direct impact, but it certainly should provide some legal basis for any lawsuits involving Friday's executive order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Yas rbg qween Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 38 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said: It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation". It's certainly a clever argument. I don't think it's a dishonest one. It came down to a judgement call, and, hey, I guess that's what we've got SCOTUS for. If they had ruled against, the outcome would have sucked, but I have to admit I wouldn't have really considered it a partisan hack job. I think in general conservative elites have been trying to ease their voting bloc into realizing it is time to move on from this fight. It may be true Roberts signed on to control the scope of the ruling, but the fact that 2 conservative justices not only got to the right conclusion but made a leap of intepretation to get there suggests to me they want to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 11 minutes ago, Chairslinger said: I think in general conservative elites have been trying to ease their voting bloc into realizing it is time to move on from this fight. You say that, but didn't the RNC literally just reaffirm that they were against em same-sex marriage in their 2020 platform? I mean, they did just copy and paste their platform from 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Nice to have some good news for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 27 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: You say that, but didn't the RNC literally just reaffirm that they were against em same-sex marriage in their 2020 platform? I mean, they did just copy and paste their platform from 2016. Yeah, I don't think you can read too much into that platform. It's a lazier cut and paste job than Madden. The warning about speech online is one of more than three dozen unflattering references to either the “current president,” “current chief executive,” “current administration,” people “currently in control” of policy, or the “current occupant” of the White House that appear in the Republican platform. Adopted at the party’s 2016 convention, it has been carried over through 2024 after the executive committee of the Republican National Committee on Wednesday chose not to adopt a new platform for 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slug Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 4 hours ago, mclumber1 said: The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view. Sexual orientation is not sex. While the bolded is true, discrimination based on sexual orientation is also necessarily discrimination based on sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 29 minutes ago, Slug said: While the bolded is true, discrimination based on sexual orientation is also necessarily discrimination based on sex. This is true, and important. The sex of your partner is just as important (in discrimination) as the sex of the person involved. Otherwise you could fire someone for marrying a black person, even if you can't fire them for being black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 he totally doesnt understand what just happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.