Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    How exactly would I or have I infringed on anyone's civil rights? I've posted (and people have ignored) that I think the law should prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. But just because I think that, and just because I think the law should be that way doesn't mean that I think federal law currently is written that way, for reasons I've explained (but people again have ignored, or dodged.)
    The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.

    Comment


    • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

      Originally posted by jerphisch View Post
      The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.
      I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

      This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
        I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

        This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?
        Don't go spouting ideas and opinions about the Café that are completely within the realm of its design! That's not allowed here.
        "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

        "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

        "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

        Comment


        • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

          This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?
          Do you want people's opinions on what the law should be (we can all answer) or legal analysis of what the law is (guessing uno is the only poster who's answer would be worth taking the time read). Because your post sounds like you're asking for the latter, and forgive us for not taking the time to get into a debate where neither debater knows what they're talking about.

          Comment


          • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

            Originally posted by jerphisch View Post
            The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.
            But here's the thing. They tried to argue in front of the court, but the judges were caught up on bathrooms and "what's in your pants?"

            And Hovey, let me be clear with you: there are times I think you're trying to bait me into losing my sh-t, and I wish you would can it. Especially when I've explained multiple times that employers in the state of Michigan can fire me just because I'm bi/pansexual and transgender. Right now, as I pursue my MSW so I can get a license later, I'm also bearing in mind that employers can refuse to hire me because of my orientation and gender identity. I'm also looking for a part time job as a community living support specialist or daytime enrichment staff, and that's pretty weighty to keep in mind.
            Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
            "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
            Patreon for exclusive writing content
            Adventures With Amber Marie

            Comment


            • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

              The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.

              Comment


              • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.
                Like I said, there are times I think it. I'll keep this in mind the next time I engage.
                Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
                "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
                Patreon for exclusive writing content
                Adventures With Amber Marie

                Comment


                • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                  Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                  The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.
                  This is exactly right.

                  I first posted on the subject in response to a post someone made (I don't even remember who) that if the Supremes decide that the statute as written doesn't cover gender orientation discrimination, they made a political decision. My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.

                  I've said repeatedly I don't think sex orientation discrimination is appropriate or should be allowed.
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    ialto

                    Or, just being chicken little. Cause, you know, that's what I do. After all, how could I possibly think the sky is falling in America? How could I possibly come to such a conclusion.
                    You still don't get it. But instead of attempting to figure it out... You decided to "ignore" so whatever.
                    Things are bad...not one person denies this...where you chicken little...is claiming democracy is dead over everything Trump does.
                    You won't read it so I apologize to everyone else...but ce la vie...
                    "If you leave ignorance and stupidity alone, ignorance and stupidity will think it's ok."
                    -Gallagher

                    R.I.P.
                    Grandpa G. ~ Feb 11, 1918-Oct. 6, 1999
                    Grandma ~ Jan 2004
                    Dad ~ Nov. 4, 1958-April 21, 2008
                    Grandpa S. ~ June 21, 1932-November 11, 2013

                    Comment


                    • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?
                      That this is a place of free discourse doesn't mean it's a place where people won't get called out when they make specious or insincere arguments.

                      For the record I take your posts as entirely sincere. I believe you are honestly ignorant and not a cynical troll.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                        My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.
                        I answered that argument but you never engaged with my answer.

                        Here is my argument stripped of all fancypants language:

                        1. "Sex" in the original meaning of the statute covered biological sex. The statute reflected that we view it to be unfair to discriminate against somebody because of attitudes related to sex.

                        2. We have come to understand that "sex" encompasses sexual preference and gender identification because we understand sex better now.

                        3. The law therefore does logically cover sexual preference and gender identification. Sex always included these things -- we just didn't know it yet. No additional laws ought to be needed.

                        BUT

                        4. Some people sincerely still do not understand that sex includes sexual preference and gender identification.

                        5. Some powerful entities, who know better, are interested in appealing to those people for votes and dollars and attack sexual preference and gender identification in order to fill their pockets.

                        THEREFORE

                        6. In the interim in which the Courts come to unambiguously disallow this discrimination we continue to pass laws specifically protecting these people because they are put at immediate risk by a powerful, albeit gradually dying off, political movement.
                        Last edited by Kepler; 10-10-2019, 11:40 AM.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          See, this is why I still hang around in Cafe. It's to see what people come up with at their computer when they try to post an answer that includes insults with it.
                          And you just did an excellent job.
                          What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            This is exactly right.

                            I first posted on the subject in response to a post someone made (I don't even remember who) that if the Supremes decide that the statute as written doesn't cover gender orientation discrimination, they made a political decision. My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.

                            I've said repeatedly I don't think sex orientation discrimination is appropriate or should be allowed.
                            They made an interpretive decision. That's what the Supremes do, interpret the meaning of the laws as written and how they've been enforced over time.

                            Some people call that "judicial activism". Usually when they don't like the way the court interpreted the law.
                            What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                            Comment


                            • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                              Originally posted by rufus View Post
                              They made an interpretive decision. That's what the Supremes do, interpret the meaning of the laws as written and how they've been enforced over time.

                              Some people call that "judicial activism". Usually when they don't like the way the court interpreted the law.
                              Right. And Hovey's first post on the topic he argued with me that the Court was in effect "writing the law" of which I said, I'm not aware of any Court writing a law. I heard *crickets* after that.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

                                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                                Right. And Hovey's first post on the topic he argued with me that the Court was in effect "writing the law" of which I said, I'm not aware of any Court writing a law. I heard *crickets* after that.
                                This was my first post on the topic.


                                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                                I haven't read too much on this case, but isn't it a case about whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is included in the broad "sex discrimination" statutes passed by Congress 50 years ago?

                                Personally I think the law should ban such discrimination. Not only is it wrong to engage in such discrimination, it's stupid. Thus, it won't bother me if the Supreme Court says it's included.

                                But that said, it also seems to me that in light of the fact that what, maybe half the states, and hundreds of cities nationwide have taken the step to specifically identify sexual orientation discrimination as prohibited conduct in addition to "sex discrimination" suggests that both judicially and legislatively in this country pretty much everyone concluded sexual orientation discrimination is not included in Title VII?

                                I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a decision by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or anyone else on that court concluding that sex orientation is not covered in the old definition is a sign of partisanship. People on this board, including you, have talked about how this state or that doesn't identify sex orientation as a protected category in the human rights statutes in the state where they reside. Yet I'm going to guess most of those states have a "sex discrimination" statute. It seems like it is a legislative solution. Just my two cents.
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X