3
   

Supreme Court Upholds Rulings Banning LGBT Discrimination - Conservative Pundits Lose It.

 
 
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 12:42 pm
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions banning LGBT discrimination.

Quote:
Monday’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County revolves around a question fraught with political ramifications: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bar discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity? The law forbids discrimination “because of sex,” but does not mention LGBTQ people. Civil rights advocates have long argued, however, that it is not possible to discriminate against a gay, bisexual, or transgender person without taking their sex into account. So, when an employer engages in anti-LGBTQ discrimination, they are engaging in a form of sex discrimination under Title VII.

This argument rests on textualism, the theory—ascendant in conservative legal circles—that courts should look to the plain text of the law, not legislative history or congressional intent. Most scholars agree that Congress wasn’t thinking about LGBTQ people when it passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. But Congress wasn’t thinking about a lot of things, including sexual harassment, which SCOTUS didn’t outlaw as discriminatory until 1986. Bostock therefore asks: When the text of a law leads to an outcome that Congress probably didn’t envision, should the court still follow the text to its logical conclusion?

In a breezy 29-page opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said, emphatically, yes. (Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberals.) “An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex,” Gorsuch wrote. “It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision.” And “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”


Conservative activists took the news badly. One comment (follow link for plenty more)

Quote:
Gorsuch’s Monday opinion apparently enraged Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, an organization which reportedly spent $10 million to secure Gorsuch’s confirmation in 2017 and promised another $10 million to secure Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s in 2018. Severino accused Gorsuch of ruling “for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards” in “a brute force attack on our constitutional system.”


Yep, that's Gorsuch, always worried about what college campus editorial boards think.
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 01:42 pm
@engineer,
And to think, people were so sure that Gorsuch would always side with the Conservatives. It's nice to know he takes the law seriously and not only understands it, he rules accordingly.

Yet another slap and strike against Mitch McConnell and his cohorts who thought avoiding Obama's selection of Garland would tilt all decisions over to the right of center.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 01:46 pm
Good that they still have a smidgeon of integrity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 01:56 pm
Who are the people that think discrimination of anyone is a good idea? I hate that those people get put on my side.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:00 pm
@engineer,
"Conservative Activists and Pundits"... follow link and they quote 3 people I have never even heard of...

That headline is fake news.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:00 pm
@Sturgis,
I always thought Gorsuch was not the person the radical right thought he was. It's particularly cutting how he dismissed/rebuked Alito and took the conservative high ground.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:01 pm
@McGentrix,
I know you are for police accountability. Meaning you probably don't think it's a good idea to look for excuses to murder black people while pretending to protect and serve. I have no idea what you think on this issue.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:03 pm
@McGentrix,
It's funny (in a sad way). Conservatives in the 70's generally pushed civil rights. A lot of the civil right legislation we take for granted today was passed by during Nixon's terms.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:11 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

"Conservative Activists and Pundits"... follow link and they quote 3 people I have never even heard of...


Here are some more, maybe some you've heard of.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/neil-gorsuch-conservatives-supreme-court
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:48 pm
@engineer,
As I stated above, I hate that they are on my side of other issues. Oh well, can't pick the members of the tribe, right? Doesn't mean I have to agree with them and on this one I am in total disagreement.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2020 02:52 pm
@edgarblythe,
https://able2know.org/topic/549259-1#post-7024129
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2020 09:55 am
In a counter reaction to the hyperbole of the pundits, Republican Congressional leaders show support for the decision.

Quote:
Conservatives are seething over Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion that cemented new protections for LGBTQ people. The Senate Republicans who confirmed him? Not so much.

Seven years ago, just nine Senate Republicans supported a bill codifying workplace protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. And after it passed the Senate, the GOP-controlled House never took it up.

But on Monday, the Republican Party seemed generally supportive of both the substance and process by which the Supreme Court extended Civil Rights Act protections to gay, lesbian and transgender workers. President Donald Trump declined to trash the decision, calling it “powerful” — and his party largely agreed with the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling.

“It’s important that we recognize that all Americans have equal rights under our Constitution,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said. “I’m fine with it.”

Plus, the decision could take from Congress a divisive social issue — five months before the 2020 elections. Congress has repeatedly failed to address the issue.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2020 11:32 am
@engineer,
I don't understand why the Supreme Court would want to take a divisive social issue from Congress. That's not democracy.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2020 11:40 am
@brianjakub,
They didn't, they interpreted a law already on the books. If Congress wants to say they didn't mean what they wrote, they can change it in law. At this point though, Congress as a whole seems content with the interpretation.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2020 11:47 am
@engineer,
You are correct.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2020 11:49 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

As I stated above, I hate that they are on my side of other issues. Oh well, can't pick the members of the tribe, right?


Are you after sympathy or something? I’m so sorry you agree with white nationalists, neo Nazis and general bigots on a whole range of issues. It must be so upsetting. Do you have a support group or something?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court Upholds Rulings Banning LGBT Discrimination - Conservative Pundits Lose It.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:20:28