Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Nah, I'm a pure amateur at it. Others are more practiced.
Nah, I'm a pure amateur at it. Others are more practiced.
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
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
It was after I responded to your first post. You literally argued that the Judiciary "Writes Laws" which is a debunked bs theory from radical conservatives who think their very way of life is slipping away.
It was after I responded to your first post. You literally argued that the Judiciary "Writes Laws" which is a debunked bs theory from radical conservatives who think their very way of life is slipping away.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
As someone once wrote, "try again."
You complained of "majority rule" because you predict Congress will never act as you want. I responded by asking that if we're not going to rely on Congress to write the laws, would you prefer it be nine supreme court justices or the president?
The exchange is below.
As someone once wrote, "try again."
You complained of "majority rule" because you predict Congress will never act as you want. I responded by asking that if we're not going to rely on Congress to write the laws, would you prefer it be nine supreme court justices or the president?
The exchange is below.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
And I state again. They've never written a law. And without the court the minority in this country would be driven over with a truck.
And I state again. They've never written a law. And without the court the minority in this country would be driven over with a truck.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
It's not an insult to call somebody "ignorant." I specifically didn't call you stupid, which would have been an insult. And for the record I don't think you're stupid. I do think there are things about this you don't know or haven't considered, but that's not an insult. I was reading about Isabelle/HOL today and I'd never heard it before. I was ignorant of it.
But I'll downgrade it and just say I think you are wrongheaded on this. I understand you respect gender identity and sexual preference issues and don't want to see people discriminated against based on those. You aren't joe; you aren't thumping a book of iron age Jewish folktales and telling me my science doesn't matter. But I think you are still separating them from the plain meaning of "sex" because you are within the thrall of thinking that these are somehow "new" rights or an expansion of rights, and the point is they aren't. When we committed to being sex-blind in the application of laws we committed to these, too; we just weren't knowledgeable that they follow on from simple "sex."
Let me put it this way. Let's say that future medical research after we colonize Mars determines that women are more at risk for Martian Hives. Insurance companies get Republicans to write a law saying they don't have to cover Martian Hives. The SCOTUS will strike it down because it doesn't matter that we didn't know about sex predilections of Martian Hives when we wrote the law. The point was no discrimination based on sex.
Do you see now how that rebuts your argument?
It's not an insult to call somebody "ignorant." I specifically didn't call you stupid, which would have been an insult. And for the record I don't think you're stupid. I do think there are things about this you don't know or haven't considered, but that's not an insult. I was reading about Isabelle/HOL today and I'd never heard it before. I was ignorant of it.
But I'll downgrade it and just say I think you are wrongheaded on this. I understand you respect gender identity and sexual preference issues and don't want to see people discriminated against based on those. You aren't joe; you aren't thumping a book of iron age Jewish folktales and telling me my science doesn't matter. But I think you are still separating them from the plain meaning of "sex" because you are within the thrall of thinking that these are somehow "new" rights or an expansion of rights, and the point is they aren't. When we committed to being sex-blind in the application of laws we committed to these, too; we just weren't knowledgeable that they follow on from simple "sex."
Let me put it this way. Let's say that future medical research after we colonize Mars determines that women are more at risk for Martian Hives. Insurance companies get Republicans to write a law saying they don't have to cover Martian Hives. The SCOTUS will strike it down because it doesn't matter that we didn't know about sex predilections of Martian Hives when we wrote the law. The point was no discrimination based on sex.
Do you see now how that rebuts your argument?
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Hovey’s thought process: if you say you’re dying of thirst, but accept the 2 oz of water that I offer you, then I conclude that you weren’t actually dying of thirst; your acceptance of a near-term half measure proves you don’t believe you have a long term issue.
Hovey’s thought process: if you say you’re dying of thirst, but accept the 2 oz of water that I offer you, then I conclude that you weren’t actually dying of thirst; your acceptance of a near-term half measure proves you don’t believe you have a long term issue.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
You are more succinct and clear than I, as always.
You are more succinct and clear than I, as always.
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
I haven't been trying to avoid you or responding to your posts. Part of it has just been I've been trying to go back through the posts to rebut what I thought were just misrepresentations by some people about what I typed, part of it is I'm trying to formulate an explanation to you in my mind before typing it, and part of it is trying to spend a small amount of the day pretending I'm actually doing work.
I guess I would make just two points. My original posts on the subject were made to explain that I understand the argument sex orientation isn't included in the original term "sex" used in Title VII, and if a person decides the case and decides it isn't included, I won't just ascribe "politics" as the reason for it. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily rule that way, and as I've said before I think such discrimination should be outlawed, however it has to be done.
But for point two, if I was asked to rule on the subject, I think I tend to lean towards saying Title VII language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sex" is not broad enough to include sexual orientation. I'm not certain my opinion is fixed in stone, but I tend to lean in that direction. Here is why.
The statute was passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Making decisions and distinctions on the basis of whether it's a man or a woman.
I don't think sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination is the same. I've been trying to think of a good example, but I'll admit I've struggled to find one. Maybe the closest that I can come up with is this.
We all probably recall the instance of the white woman who claimed to be African-American and I think even rose to some level in the NAACP before she was exposed. Let's say her employer found out about that and terminated her. Does she have a claim for discrimination on the basis of race? See, I don't think so. Does she have a claim because she is white but she identified as an African-American? What if it was vice versa? I don't think that's race discrimination, at least as contemplated by the statutes. Maybe it should be illegal to fire someone who identifies as a minority, but I personally think you would need a separate category.
I guess in the end I tend to view sexual orientation discrimination as almost being closer to marital status discrimination, although that isn't a real good comparison either. You are being mistreated not because you are physically a man or not because you are physically a woman, but because of your actions, because of who you have a relationship with, because of who you think you are and believe you are regardless of your physical characteristics.
But I'll admit, it creates really interesting questions in the abstract for white males like me, but certainly more serious questions for people like MT.
I haven't been trying to avoid you or responding to your posts. Part of it has just been I've been trying to go back through the posts to rebut what I thought were just misrepresentations by some people about what I typed, part of it is I'm trying to formulate an explanation to you in my mind before typing it, and part of it is trying to spend a small amount of the day pretending I'm actually doing work.
I guess I would make just two points. My original posts on the subject were made to explain that I understand the argument sex orientation isn't included in the original term "sex" used in Title VII, and if a person decides the case and decides it isn't included, I won't just ascribe "politics" as the reason for it. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily rule that way, and as I've said before I think such discrimination should be outlawed, however it has to be done.
But for point two, if I was asked to rule on the subject, I think I tend to lean towards saying Title VII language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sex" is not broad enough to include sexual orientation. I'm not certain my opinion is fixed in stone, but I tend to lean in that direction. Here is why.
The statute was passed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Making decisions and distinctions on the basis of whether it's a man or a woman.
I don't think sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination is the same. I've been trying to think of a good example, but I'll admit I've struggled to find one. Maybe the closest that I can come up with is this.
We all probably recall the instance of the white woman who claimed to be African-American and I think even rose to some level in the NAACP before she was exposed. Let's say her employer found out about that and terminated her. Does she have a claim for discrimination on the basis of race? See, I don't think so. Does she have a claim because she is white but she identified as an African-American? What if it was vice versa? I don't think that's race discrimination, at least as contemplated by the statutes. Maybe it should be illegal to fire someone who identifies as a minority, but I personally think you would need a separate category.
I guess in the end I tend to view sexual orientation discrimination as almost being closer to marital status discrimination, although that isn't a real good comparison either. You are being mistreated not because you are physically a man or not because you are physically a woman, but because of your actions, because of who you have a relationship with, because of who you think you are and believe you are regardless of your physical characteristics.
But I'll admit, it creates really interesting questions in the abstract for white males like me, but certainly more serious questions for people like MT.
unofan
Well-known member
Insurance was a really bad example to use, considering gender is used regularly to discriminate in that arena.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
I think it may be good for you to bear in mind that while this is an especially important and passionate issue for you (as it should be), anyone on this board who is seriously out to try and stuff you back into the closet or worse either stopped posting long ago, considers the Cafe a swamp of academia-indoctrinated lefty bullies and won't post their hate here
, or has been banninated.
At the same time, I think all of us have to consider that MT and others like her have to be vocal on this topic. Telling her, "Settle down and keep it out of our faces", "Work through the proper channels to effect change", and "Understand you're asking for too much, too quickly and society takes time to adjust" are all classic responses by the powerful majority to every progressive rights movement in history.
I think it may be good for you to bear in mind that while this is an especially important and passionate issue for you (as it should be), anyone on this board who is seriously out to try and stuff you back into the closet or worse either stopped posting long ago, considers the Cafe a swamp of academia-indoctrinated lefty bullies and won't post their hate here
, or has been banninated.At the same time, I think all of us have to consider that MT and others like her have to be vocal on this topic. Telling her, "Settle down and keep it out of our faces", "Work through the proper channels to effect change", and "Understand you're asking for too much, too quickly and society takes time to adjust" are all classic responses by the powerful majority to every progressive rights movement in history.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
That's why it's a good example. It's a classic case of a place where bigots get their way despite the intent of law.
That's why it's a good example. It's a classic case of a place where bigots get their way despite the intent of law.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
For example, this issue would be solved by the Equality Act, but McConnell considers that "TEH SOCIALISMS!!!!" or something, and blocked the Senate from voting on it. As for waiting for a legislative body to solve the issue from state to state, Michigan's House or Senate Majority Leader, I forget which, said Pubbies' religious freedom is more important than my freedom to exist. We're not going to get this in Michigan unless the state House/Senate flips.
And you're right, Flaggy was perma-banned and a few other posters aren't posting here. In many ways, I'm sick of dealing with those kind of people in general, and I think that comes out here. And there are times where it's hard to determine if you're asking honest questions to learn, or part of the "just asking questions" group. One thing I will flag people on is the phrase "I disagree with the lifestyle you chose." That's a weasel phrase, and it strips me of my humanity.
I think it may be good for you to bear in mind that while this is an especially important and passionate issue for you (as it should be), anyone on this board who is seriously out to try and stuff you back into the closet or worse either stopped posting long ago, considers the Cafe a swamp of academia-indoctrinated lefty bullies and won't post their hate here
At the same time, I think all of us have to consider that MT and others like her have to be vocal on this topic. Telling her, "Settle down and keep it out of our faces", "Work through the proper channels to effect change", and "Understand you're asking for too much, too quickly and society takes time to adjust" are all classic responses by the powerful majority to every progressive rights movement in history.
For example, this issue would be solved by the Equality Act, but McConnell considers that "TEH SOCIALISMS!!!!" or something, and blocked the Senate from voting on it. As for waiting for a legislative body to solve the issue from state to state, Michigan's House or Senate Majority Leader, I forget which, said Pubbies' religious freedom is more important than my freedom to exist. We're not going to get this in Michigan unless the state House/Senate flips.
And you're right, Flaggy was perma-banned and a few other posters aren't posting here. In many ways, I'm sick of dealing with those kind of people in general, and I think that comes out here. And there are times where it's hard to determine if you're asking honest questions to learn, or part of the "just asking questions" group. One thing I will flag people on is the phrase "I disagree with the lifestyle you chose." That's a weasel phrase, and it strips me of my humanity.
unofan
Well-known member
Yes, those actuarial tables are truly bigoted against young unmarried males...
I'm on your side on this (generally), and worked for my state's Civil Rights Commission for about 5 years. So trust me when I say the law isn't nearly as pliable as you are advocating or seem to think it is.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Oh, I see what you are saying now. I was approaching it from the legal angle. You are right, it makes perfect sense from the mathematical side.
Oh, I see what you are saying now. I was approaching it from the legal angle. You are right, it makes perfect sense from the mathematical side.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
This week has not been kind to my community. I'm tired. I'm sad. I'm angry. As much as I'd like to bury my head in the sand and ignore all this, as an out trans woman in America, I can't. I have to stay awake and fight. Yesterday was National Coming Out Day, and while I was and am largely fortunate (mostly supportive employer, housing, car purchase, etc), many of my tribe is not so fortunate. Thrown out on the streets, denied shelter, denied employment, mistreated by blood family... **** all this ****.
I have to keep going though. While I may not physically die as a result of this fight (I hope not), my generation is fighting and is sacrificing themselves for the next generation. I turned 38 years old September 20. Unless I see a Dem-controlled House and Senate and a Dem president, I won't see the Equality Act signed into law. I won't see 100% unequivocal LGBTQ+ Equality in my lifetime. I'll be 6 feet under by the time LGBTQ equality rolls around. Why? Because those in power see my existence as a "lifestyle." A "choice" they "disagree" with. Someone tried to tell me "not all Republicans want me dead." They may not want me dead physically, but they want to deny me health care, they want to deny me housing, they want to deny me the right to be employed. And if I ever get arrested, they want me harassed and thrown in a men's prison. At the very least, they want me to shut the F up and get back in the closet, which would cause me to die a slow death. But I can't shut up. More importantly, I won't.
Right now, as I deal with this and with a weak lower body, the only thing I'm thinking is "generally speaking, the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death." (Miyamoto Musashi) The weak lower body will improve with therapy and what strength exercises I can do. However, the fight I'm in for a free society for me will probably end for me without seeing tangible results in the way of progress. That's alright. I still need to stand up and get out of the apartment in the morning. I need to be out and visible, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
Hopefully you'll join us. Visit our Pride centers. Talk to us... we don't mind honest questions. Listen to us and let us tell our stories. Be prepared to defend us.
This week has not been kind to my community. I'm tired. I'm sad. I'm angry. As much as I'd like to bury my head in the sand and ignore all this, as an out trans woman in America, I can't. I have to stay awake and fight. Yesterday was National Coming Out Day, and while I was and am largely fortunate (mostly supportive employer, housing, car purchase, etc), many of my tribe is not so fortunate. Thrown out on the streets, denied shelter, denied employment, mistreated by blood family... **** all this ****.
I have to keep going though. While I may not physically die as a result of this fight (I hope not), my generation is fighting and is sacrificing themselves for the next generation. I turned 38 years old September 20. Unless I see a Dem-controlled House and Senate and a Dem president, I won't see the Equality Act signed into law. I won't see 100% unequivocal LGBTQ+ Equality in my lifetime. I'll be 6 feet under by the time LGBTQ equality rolls around. Why? Because those in power see my existence as a "lifestyle." A "choice" they "disagree" with. Someone tried to tell me "not all Republicans want me dead." They may not want me dead physically, but they want to deny me health care, they want to deny me housing, they want to deny me the right to be employed. And if I ever get arrested, they want me harassed and thrown in a men's prison. At the very least, they want me to shut the F up and get back in the closet, which would cause me to die a slow death. But I can't shut up. More importantly, I won't.
Right now, as I deal with this and with a weak lower body, the only thing I'm thinking is "generally speaking, the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death." (Miyamoto Musashi) The weak lower body will improve with therapy and what strength exercises I can do. However, the fight I'm in for a free society for me will probably end for me without seeing tangible results in the way of progress. That's alright. I still need to stand up and get out of the apartment in the morning. I need to be out and visible, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
Hopefully you'll join us. Visit our Pride centers. Talk to us... we don't mind honest questions. Listen to us and let us tell our stories. Be prepared to defend us.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ah, the roberts two-step:<br><br>when legislatures take action to expand and secure voting rights? “uh that’s actually unconstitutional”<br><br>when courts challenge gerrymandering so partisan it amounts to disenfranchisement? “uh, not actually our problem” <a href="https://t.co/YleOcxM63q">https://t.co/YleOcxM63q</a></p>— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1186304525948391424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ah, the roberts two-step:<br><br>when legislatures take action to expand and secure voting rights? “uh that’s actually unconstitutional”<br><br>when courts challenge gerrymandering so partisan it amounts to disenfranchisement? “uh, not actually our problem” <a href="https://t.co/YleOcxM63q">https://t.co/YleOcxM63q</a></p>— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1186304525948391424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Roberts is an a55clown.
Roberts is an a55clown.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Roberts is a tool used by the Plutes to shelter their thefts. Right now the best way to do that is to ensure Republican electoral victories. The man has a job to do.
Roberts is a tool used by the Plutes to shelter their thefts. Right now the best way to do that is to ensure Republican electoral victories. The man has a job to do.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
Michigan is screwed until at least 2022 now. Nothing is getting done with Whitmer as gov with a Republican Congress.
Michigan is screwed until at least 2022 now. Nothing is getting done with Whitmer as gov with a Republican Congress.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
One thing about gerrymandering, though. It's great as long as you are close but it creates a cliff at about -8 points. All those votes you steal to flip the -3 suburban districts come from someplace and typically the geography doesn't let you take them from say +30 rural districts. You're taking them from +7/8/9/10 districts, so if the pendulum ever swings to a net -8 you don't just lose the districts you've been stealing you suddenly get destroyed in those districts you would have still held had you played fair.
The stinger in the tail of gerrymandering is when it finally falls apart you go into freefall. The GOP has been snickering along for a decade but eventually they're going to roll double sixes and when that happens they are so massively f-cked it barely bears thinking about.
One thing about gerrymandering, though. It's great as long as you are close but it creates a cliff at about -8 points. All those votes you steal to flip the -3 suburban districts come from someplace and typically the geography doesn't let you take them from say +30 rural districts. You're taking them from +7/8/9/10 districts, so if the pendulum ever swings to a net -8 you don't just lose the districts you've been stealing you suddenly get destroyed in those districts you would have still held had you played fair.
The stinger in the tail of gerrymandering is when it finally falls apart you go into freefall. The GOP has been snickering along for a decade but eventually they're going to roll double sixes and when that happens they are so massively f-cked it barely bears thinking about.
Last edited:
- Status