It’s like the Bat-signal to them. The REAL Republicans don’t care about social cases involving discrimination, civil rights, or women’s rights. They only care that the base who vote for them care. The dollars are the bottom line for them.
Jenn3
jenn3
Well, because they’re horrible people, the maladministration will most likely push ahead as if this court decision never happened, and then waste time and resources defending the indefensible, again.
To add Meritxell’s comment, Thomas’s (and most of the other conservative justices’) philosophy of legal interpretation (known as textualism or originalism) is rooted in what the words of the law supposedly meant at the time it was written, so he would definitely want a dictionary as close to the time of the law’s…
Dudes been phoning the shit in ever since the Anita Hill hearings.
Many people who are anti-LGBTQ would also be happy with legal inequality between men and women. Phyllis Schafly’s bad ideas didn’t die with her, and there are people who pine for the days of men only and women only Help Wanted ads.
He’s a rules lawyer. He doesn’t care about right or wrong, good or bad.
He care about the text of the law. You can’t get to sexual orientation without going through “Sex”, which is protected.
The lawyer involved in the argument 100% agrees with you, btw.
Well, the Civil Rights Act is also from 1964.
I need to put this somewhere but I am grey- Alito’s dissent was 172 total pages. I feel for his poor clerks
Gorsuch’s views don’t mesh with left-wing views, however, like Sessions, he does believe in upholding the law and so sometimes he’s going to cross party lines, as a good justice should because they really shouldn’t be beholden to any party. While I would have preferred Garland to be the justice, Gorsuch wasn’t the…
In all seriousness, I thought Gorsuch was qualified but flawed. His argument makes complete sense to not-a-lawyer me, and is also ‘the right thing to do’.
To me, it’s a clear sign of the ACLU’s argument - that you can’t separate sex from sexual orientation if you’re firing a person for loving a man because that person is a man and not a woman - is absolutely airtight logic.
From Gorsuch’s opinion:
LGBTQ+ discrimination is inherently sex discrimination, because it is about cultural expectations for sex and gender behaviours. It’s not surprising that a strict textualist would come down on the right side of this decision, because it’s obvious and plain as day. If anything, this only further exposes the three…
That is the exact example Gorsuch used further down in his opinion. If you have two employees both attracted to men, and are completely the same in the eyes of the employer (ie job performance) other than their gender then by firing someone because they are gay means you naturally are taking sex of employee into…
The senior justice on each side decides who writes the opinions. Since Roberts was on the majority side, his decision to have Gorsuch write the opinion may have been political. I’ve seen speculation on Twitter that Roberts only joined the majority to ensure that Ginsburg wouldn’t get to author it. For whatever that’s…
There is no escaping the role intent plays: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking.
I’m shocked Gorsuch decided to be on the right side of history for once. Roberts I expected because he’s trying to keep the image of the court being impartial/even handed (even though it totally isn’t) and it’s easy to see the wind of change on this one as most people are going to agree with this and that ratio is…