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

[Kepler]

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

It didn't come down today, and they aren't scheduled to release opinions tomorrow, so the earliest you'd see it is Monday. And you'll give yourself an ulcer trying to predict when it'll be issued. Could be any time between now and the end of June.

My guess on Roberts is if it's human it will drop ASAP. The Court needs to be seen as non-partisan to set up their screw job for Dump this Fall.

If it's fascist then Roberts will hold off as long as he can.

But it should be human. Roberts doesn't give a sh-t about civil rights or LBGT+; he's in the business of giving the right pure political power and the rich pure economic power. The rest is window dressing. So I assume he will tactically get this right to play the long game.

 

[MissThundercat]

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

My guess on Roberts is if it's human it will drop ASAP. The Court needs to be seen as non-partisan to set up their screw job for Dump.

If it's fascist then Roberts will hold off as long as he can.

But I'm thinking they'll be fascists, and it'll be legal to fire me because I'm a queer.

 

[Kepler]

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

But I'm thinking they'll be fascists, and it'll be legal to fire me because I'm a queer.

If this was an executive agency yes, they'd do that, as psychotics. And Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh will go out of their way to f-ck you out of their bigotry.

But there's no percentage in Roberts and Gorsuch screwing you. For them, you and your rights don't even exist as something to oppose. They are looking at a balance sheet, maximizing their masters' wealth. The measure of their callousness for you is not their hatred, it's their detachment.

 

[unofan]

If this was an executive agency yes, they'd do that, as psychotics. But there's no percentage in the Court screwing you. For them, you and your rights don't even exist as something to oppose.

They are looking at a balance sheet, maximizing their masters' wealth. The measure of their callousness for you is not their hatred, it's their detachment.

The technical argument is whether sex covers sexual orientation. Frankly, I think it's a stretch to say that it does and I could see even the liberal justices going that way. The easy fix is to just have the democrats add that in come January if they take over the government.

 

[unofan]

My guess on Roberts is if it's human it will drop ASAP. The Court needs to be seen as non-partisan to set up their screw job for Dump this Fall.

Or, you know, they'll issue it when it's done. I'm not naive enough to doubt that personal politics influences decisions, but the mechanical operation of the Court really is fairly rigid and can be easily understood with a couple hours' research.

 

[unofan]

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

Edit: and just to add, ironically I think it's easier to get to gender identity being covered by the term "sex" than sexual orientation, so the Ts are more likely to win than the LGBs.

 

[SJHovey]

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

The technical argument is whether sex covers sexual orientation. Frankly, I think it's a stretch to say that it does and I could see even the liberal justices going that way. The easy fix is to just have the democrats add that in come January if they take over the government.

Careful. I posted something similar back in October and got roasted for it.

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.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Interesting argument, Hovey. You're saying that because states recognized that the Feds have been derelict in their duty to protect citizens' rights and therefore stepped in to fill the gap, that forever absolves the Feds from *ever* having to protect those rights?

You deserved to be roasted for that.

 

[unofan]

Interesting argument, Hovey. You're saying that because states recognized that the Feds have been derelict in their duty to protect citizens' rights and therefore stepped in to fill the gap, that forever absolves the Feds from *ever* having to protect those rights?

You deserved to be roasted for that.

No, it means that pretty much no one has previously defined "sex" to encompass sexual orientation. And since any prohibition on discrimination by private entities is a statutory and not constitutional issue, the specificity of the terms in the statute are kinda important.

If the statute doesn't cover it, then the statute doesn't cover it. Yes, it's a dereliction by the Feds, but in this specific instance, I'm not sold on the remedy.

 

[LynahFan]

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

No, it means that pretty much no one has previously defined "sex" to encompass sexual orientation. And since any prohibition on discrimination by private entities is a statutory and not constitutional issue, the specificity of the terms in the statute are kinda important.

If the statute doesn't cover it, then the statute doesn't cover it. Yes, it's a dereliction by the Feds, but in this specific instance, I'm not sold on the remedy.

Right, but that's a different argument than Hovey was making. Your argument says nothing whatsoever about state laws that may be out there - the Fed statute either does or doesn't cover it. Hovey relies on the existence of the state laws as evidence that the federal law must not cover it, which is bad logic.

Personally I don't see how the term "sex" doesn't refer to the entire realm of sexuality as a broad category. As in things not to bring up at the Thanksgiving dinner table: politics, religion, SEC football, sex, etc. Why should the term sex be limited to referring to the two "normal" cis genders? That would be like saying that freedom of religion really only covers freedom of Christianity. Christianity is a small subset of the realm of religion.

(I agree with you that pretty much no one has treated it legally in that way. But they should because I'm right. )

 

[Kepler]

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

Personally I don't see how the term "sex" doesn't refer to the entire realm of sexuality as a broad category.

Agreed. Where the rubber meets the road on "sex," from a legal perspective, is exactly those aspects where people are discriminated against, like orientation. Sex is where sex matters.

I don't see it as a stretch at all. It only is if you're an Originalist, but if you're an Originalist then you think black people used to only be 60% human.

Tradition is wrong sometimes. Cultures change and our interpretation of the law changes with it. Righties understand this on 2A and corporate personhood, they just forget about it when it comes to protecting the people they need to abuse and scapegoat to stave off their understanding of their own worthlessness.

Because, and this is a deeply guarded secret, they're a bunch of pathetic, fragile, entitled hypocrites.

 

[unofan]

Why should the term sex be limited to referring to the two "normal" cis genders?

I don't think it does, which is why I think the case involving transgendered people is actually easier to win.

I struggle with defining sex in the gender sense as inherently encompassing sexual orientation though. In my mind, one's gender is a different concept from who one wants to fark.

 

[Kepler]

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

I don't think it does, which is why I think the case involving transgendered people is actually easier to win.

I struggle with defining sex in the gender sense as inherently encompassing sexual orientation though. In my mind, one's gender is a different concept from who one wants to fark.

But the latter still involves gender as an operative category.

I think your argument would be analogous to me saying, "racial equality should be about blacks and whites being equal under the law, but they shouldn't say anything about an employer who wants to fire you because you want to sleep with somebody of another race."

No. It should all be covered under racial equality under the law.

 

[Handyman]

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

But usually it requires more than just a broad law to do that. There needs to be further definition. As things change more things need to be defined. No one law is a catch all when it comes to the coursts we see that all the time.

 

[Kepler]

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

But usually it requires more than just a broad law to do that. There needs to be further definition. As things change more things need to be defined. No one law is a catch all when it comes to the coursts we see that all the time.

I don't agree. The 14A already covers all of this. It just requires a lot of legislative and judicial work to remove the garbage bigots were able to encrust over it over time.

The principle and the ethical reality are already there, shining through. The effort is to scrape off all the grime the Thumpers smeared all over it.

LGBT do not require our liberation. They only require bigots stop being allowed to persecute them. They're already free and equal -- nobody gave them that, it was always so. All that is happening now is we are stopping tards from punching them in the face.

 

[Handyman]

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

I think you are having a completely different argument than you think you are. I will let uno handle it

 

[Kepler]

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

I think you are having a completely different argument than you think you are. I will let uno handle it

Well, I'm having my side the same as I think. I wouldn't rule out the other side isn't on board.

 

[unofan]

I don't agree. The 14A already covers all of this. It just requires a lot of legislative and judicial work to remove the garbage bigots were able to encrust over it over time.

The principle and the ethical reality are already there, shining through. The effort is to scrape off all the grime the Thumpers smeared all over it.

LGBT do not require our liberation. They only require bigots stop being allowed to persecute them. They're already free and equal -- nobody gave them that, it was always so. All that is happening now is we are stopping tards from punching them in the face.

14A applies to governments, not private entities. The default is private entities can do anything they want unless restricted by statute. In this case, the Civil Rights Act. So the question is whether the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex but not explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, nevertheless prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity as a subset of sex.

I think you can more easily get there with gender identity than sexual orientation.

 

[Kepler]

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

14A applies to governments, not private entities. The default is private entities can do anything unless restricted by statute.

I knew that.

(Retires in shame.)

 

[LynahFan]

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

14A applies to governments, not private entities. The default is private entities can do anything they want unless restricted by statute. In this case, the Civil Rights Act. So the question is whether the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex but not explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, nevertheless prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity as a subset of sex.

I think you can more easily get there with gender identity than sexual orientation.

I genuinely do not understand. The Act includes ~20 statements along the lines of "It shall be unlawful to discriminate in X activity on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This is clearly not talking about sex acts/practices ("What? I have to hire that guy even though he was having sex during the interview?") - these categories are all about personal *identity*. You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their racial identity, their religious identity, or, logically, their sexual identity. I don't know how you could possibly argue that sexual orientation is not part of someone's sexual identity, i.e. who they are sexually.