ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
You'll never hear that from me.
You'll never hear that from me.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
No, I'm saying the first few cases will tell us whether his partisanship trumps his view towards his legacy on the court.
It takes more balls to be the 5th vote to overrule precedent than it does to cast a 4th vote in dissent. We'll see which wins out.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Typical partisan split today, and one thinks it will cause "massive social upheaval" and "these changes should go through Congress."
I don't feel positive about this, being in the minority at stake here.
Typical partisan split today, and one thinks it will cause "massive social upheaval" and "these changes should go through Congress."
I don't feel positive about this, being in the minority at stake here.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
None of the current right wing justices is a profile in courage.
None of the current right wing justices is a profile in courage.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Like I said, I don't feel positive, and I'm quite sure Pubbies and certain liberals are going to cis-splain this to me to make me feel worse.
Like I said, I don't feel positive, and I'm quite sure Pubbies and certain liberals are going to cis-splain this to me to make me feel worse.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Oddly enough, I read something early today where Kavanaugh was leading the charge in questioning Louisiana for their non-unanimous jury conviction law. He seemed unimpressed, and made comments regarding racist outcomes for those convicted. It makes me wonder if there is some slight glimmer of humanity hiding in there somewhere.
Oddly enough, I read something early today where Kavanaugh was leading the charge in questioning Louisiana for their non-unanimous jury conviction law. He seemed unimpressed, and made comments regarding racist outcomes for those convicted. It makes me wonder if there is some slight glimmer of humanity hiding in there somewhere.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Maybe it's a five-sixths verdict, like states have for civil.
Maybe it's a five-sixths verdict, like states have for civil.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
winners write the history
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Yeah, that is not going well. I see the bs arguments that I expected the right to make prominent in the discussions. And if Gorsuch is the swing as indicated in the article we know which way this is likely to go.
Yeah, that is not going well. I see the bs arguments that I expected the right to make prominent in the discussions. And if Gorsuch is the swing as indicated in the article we know which way this is likely to go.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Or, in this case, cheaters.
Or, in this case, cheaters.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
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.
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.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
So, Majority Rules then? Cause that legislation will never pass Congress. Hell, Abortion was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973 and in many places in this country a woman still does not have the right to choose.
Try again.
So, Majority Rules then? Cause that legislation will never pass Congress. Hell, Abortion was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973 and in many places in this country a woman still does not have the right to choose.
Try again.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
We can do it one of three ways. We can let our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures pass the laws. Or we can let nine lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court tell us what the law should be. Or, we just let Trump do it, or whoever happens to hold the office of President. Your choice sunshine.
We can do it one of three ways. We can let our elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures pass the laws. Or we can let nine lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court tell us what the law should be. Or, we just let Trump do it, or whoever happens to hold the office of President. Your choice sunshine.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
As far as I know the Supreme Court has never passed any laws. Try again.
As far as I know the Supreme Court has never passed any laws. Try again.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
It's true that when the statute was adopted 50 years ago people didn't think of sexual preference as part of the definition of sex.
But we do now, so that ends it.
You are saying something like this: "all the laws we passed about people prior to the 13th Amendment didn't assume blacks were included. So even though the 13th Amendment includes blacks as people all those old laws still only apply to whites."
Nope. Laws* change their meaning retroactively all the time. This is reason #681 why "original intent" isn't a legal theory, it's a fig leaf for right wing social engineering. There is nothing neutral about tying the precise scope of a statute to its original meaning for the people of its time: it specifically arrests social growth at that time for the political benefit of people who want to see change frozen.
The world changes. Often it improves. The people of today are not held as prisoners of the prejudices and stupidities of people of the past -- we've got our own new ones to enjoy!
* Like scriptures
It's true that when the statute was adopted 50 years ago people didn't think of sexual preference as part of the definition of sex.
But we do now, so that ends it.
You are saying something like this: "all the laws we passed about people prior to the 13th Amendment didn't assume blacks were included. So even though the 13th Amendment includes blacks as people all those old laws still only apply to whites."
Nope. Laws* change their meaning retroactively all the time. This is reason #681 why "original intent" isn't a legal theory, it's a fig leaf for right wing social engineering. There is nothing neutral about tying the precise scope of a statute to its original meaning for the people of its time: it specifically arrests social growth at that time for the political benefit of people who want to see change frozen.
The world changes. Often it improves. The people of today are not held as prisoners of the prejudices and stupidities of people of the past -- we've got our own new ones to enjoy!
* Like scriptures
Last edited:
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
um....mookie thought you were a patsies fan now?
um....mookie thought you were a patsies fan now?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Don't you dare suggest there was anything improper in anything Belichick or the Pats have done. We are the most honest team ever.
um....mookie thought you were a patsies fan now?
Don't you dare suggest there was anything improper in anything Belichick or the Pats have done. We are the most honest team ever.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
no, it IS different now. then it was 'sex' as in men and women. today that is 'gender'. 'sex' now is as in who one wishes to have sex with. so using 'sex discrimination' isn't what the laws were meant to defend. we now as a nation need new laws to protect 'sex choice' from being discriminated as a group. or just new 'anti discrimination' laws en masse
no, it IS different now. then it was 'sex' as in men and women. today that is 'gender'. 'sex' now is as in who one wishes to have sex with. so using 'sex discrimination' isn't what the laws were meant to defend. we now as a nation need new laws to protect 'sex choice' from being discriminated as a group. or just new 'anti discrimination' laws en masse
- Status