SCOTUS rules firing LGBT people to be illegal

[RandBlade]

Split decision that went 6 to 3. Two of the 6 were appointed by Trump, so could have been 4 to 5 the other way had he appointed more justices prepared to discriminate against LGBT people. That's interesting, I wonder what Lewkowksi makes of that?

"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."-- Neil Gorsuch

Very well argued and crystal clear. 100% agree with Gorsuch here.

[wiggin]

Only gorsuch was a trump nominee. He's a textualist, hard to argue otherwise. And Roberts wasn't terribly surprising either given the role he has taken after Kennedy left.

[Lewkowski]

The problem I've always had in these discussions is people will pick a side based on what they feel is morally correct as opposed to a consistent approach in legal rulings.

[RandBlade]

The problem I've always had in these discussions is people will pick a side based on what they feel is morally correct as opposed to a consistent approach in legal rulings.

Coming from you that's funny.

So do you agree with Gorsuch or not?

Interesting wiggin, I thought Roberts was Trump.

[Lewkowski]

Coming from you that's funny.

So do you agree with Gorsuch or not?

Interesting wiggin, I thought Roberts was Trump.

I'm not a textualist, laws and the amendment rulings should be based on the original intent of the creators. Just like the notion that certain types of executions violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause... when said types of executions were done right after the amendment was ratified is an absolute absurdity.

Let me ask you this RB. Would you support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it?

[Flixy]

I'm not a textualist, laws and the amendment rulings should be based on the original intent of the creators. Just like the notion that certain types of executions violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause... when said types of executions were done right after the amendment was ratified is an absolute absurdity.

Let me ask you this RB. Would you support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it?

Does this mean you think the second amendment should only apply to muskets etc and not modern weapons? Clearly those did not exist when the amendment was ratified, so surely they didn't intend it to apply to those.

[wiggin]

Coming from you that's funny.

So do you agree with Gorsuch or not?

Interesting wiggin, I thought Roberts was Trump.

Roberts is a W appointee, waaaay before Trump. He's been the deciding vote in a number of controversial decisions since Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh.

[Aimless]

[RandBlade]

Do you support this decision or not?

[Lewkowski]

Do you support this decision or not?

Of course not - the act when written was never intended to be applied this way. A court ruling is not good or bad in terms of who it helps or hurts but in how well they apply the law and the constitution.

Now fair is fair - if a supreme court ruling upheld what you would find to be bigotry and badness based on the textual reading of something - would you also support it as the correct ruling?

[Enoch the Red]

Of course not - the act when written was never intended to be applied this way. A court ruling is not good or bad in terms of who it helps or hurts but in how well they apply the law and the constitution.

Now fair is fair - if a supreme court ruling upheld what you would find to be bigotry and badness based on the textual reading of something - would you also support it as the correct ruling?

Doesn't your argument only hold if someone has accepted your first premise that consistency of approach in ruling takes primacy over all other considerations?

[Lewkowski]

Doesn't your argument only hold if someone has accepted your first premise that consistency of approach in ruling takes primacy over all other considerations?

Yes. If judges lack consistency of approach we've got a massive problem and I'm happy to discuss why it is important the highest court of the land actually attempts to be fair and impartial.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes. If judges lack consistency of approach we've got a massive problem and I'm happy to discuss why it is important the highest court of the land actually attempts to be fair and impartial.

You are asking RandBlade, who is not, as far as I know, a member of the US Supreme Court, if he would support a Supreme Court ruling that led to obvious negative outcomes for vulnerable people if the text of the law and constitution supported it.

First, if RandBlade is not a strict textualist, (he may or may not be) then there is no contradiction if he says he doesn't support such a thing.

Second, not being a member of the court, he can of course support or decry any ruling he likes, for any reason he likes. If he supports a ruling they have come up with for moral reasons instead of their strict adherence to your favored interpretation, why is that problematic to you?

Third, being fair and impartial might mean to someone else that they look beyond the text, or the original intent in order to render a verdict that is in alignment with those goals.

Fourth, for someone who claims to be all about consistency of approach, I haven't heard a lot out of you about prosecutorial discretion. Is a prosecutor who decides not to seek charges against a home owner who killed an intruder without first attempting to retreat, (in states where their laws have that as a requirement) being fair, impartial, and just, or simply inconsistent? What about a police officer who doesn't ruin the life of someone for possessing a little weed in states where it is illegal?

[RandBlade]

Of course not - the act when written was never intended to be applied this way. A court ruling is not good or bad in terms of who it helps or hurts but in how well they apply the law and the constitution.

Now fair is fair - if a supreme court ruling upheld what you would find to be bigotry and badness based on the textual reading of something - would you also support it as the correct ruling?

The act was written intending that if you would fire a woman for doing something you wouldn't fire a man for doing, then the firing would be illegal.

Do you agree with that?

I don't understand your question. "Bigotry and badness" is too vague to answer, let alone how it matches with existing laws.

[Lewkowski]

The act was written intending that if you would fire a woman for doing something you wouldn't fire a man for doing, then the firing would be illegal.

Do you agree with that?

I don't understand your question. "Bigotry and badness" is too vague to answer, let alone how it matches with existing laws.

Would you support a ruling that causes unambiguous harm if it fit the textual reading of the constitution and law?

[RandBlade]

Would you support a ruling that causes unambiguous harm if it fit the textual reading of the constitution and law?

I don't know how a textual reading of the law and constitution could read that way but if it does so be it.

Now can you answer my question please? If you fire a woman for legally doing something you wouldn't fire a man for doing, then the intention of the act is the firing would be illegal. Do you agree with that?

[Loki]

A textualist looks only at the text, not the intent of the authors. As Gorsuch pointed out, the text is pretty clear. So it's kind of odd that Alito decided this was the case where he'd stop being a textualist.

[RandBlade]

That's not my question. If a company were to fire a woman for legally doing what a man is legally permitted to do too, but the man wouldn't be fired, then is that illegal?

EG if a the director of a company was an avid golfer who believed that playing golf is a hobby for men and would fire a woman if it was revealed that she played golf as golf should be for men in his eyes then would that be illegal under the act?

Forget sentiment, just literal textualism. Would the text forbid a company for firing a woman for playing golf if men were permitted to play golf? And both the law and the golf club welcome women golfers.

[RandBlade]

Lewk I'm still waiting for an answer.

Did the law intend to make it illegal to sack a woman for legally doing what a man could legally do and where a man wouldn't be sacked? EG if a company sacked female golfers but not male ones when would that be legal or illegal?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk I'm still waiting for an answer.

Did the law intend to make it illegal to sack a woman for legally doing what a man could legally do and where a man wouldn't be sacked? EG if a company sacked female golfers but not male ones when would that be legal or illegal?

The argument is circular. The law clearly was not intended to to protect the rights of same sex relationships. You know this. This is a post hoc rationalizing of a ruling you support on how it helps people.

[RandBlade]

Same sex relationships weren't legal then. They are now.

The law was designed to protect people being discriminated against based on sex. That is how the court literally read the law and ruled.

Do you have an answer to the golf question?

[Aimless]

This is why you shouldn't spank your kids.

[GGT]

We should have passed the Equal Rights Amendment years ago.

https://www.equalrightsamendment.org...tification-map

Lewk, equality under the law is not 'circular logic'. The original constitution only applied to men, ie white male property owners; that's the real circle-jerk.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, equality under the law is not 'circular logic'. The original constitution only applied to men, ie white male property owners; that's the real circle-jerk.

Then feel free to pass a law, like this isn't hard. We don't want judges to rule outside of their scope, that's why we have a legislative branch.

[GGT]

Then feel free to pass a law, like this isn't hard. We don't want judges to rule outside of their scope, that's why we have a legislative branch.

Right, like it didn't take a Civil War and Amendments to the Constitution to clarify that "All Men are Created Equal" meant *everyone*, including black men and slaves. Yet, it took until 1920 for women to get the right to vote.

[Lewkowski]

Right, like it didn't take a Civil War and Amendments to the Constitution to clarify that "All Men are Created Equal" meant *everyone*, including black men and slaves. Yet, it took until 1920 for women to get the right to vote.

GGT do you want judges to legislate from the bench or do you want the legislature to do it?

[GGT]

GGT do you want judges to legislate from the bench or do you want the legislature to do it?

I want you to explain why it took so long for the legislature to enact/enforce civil rights and voting rights, in accordance with the constitution. Then I want you to define "Originalism". Just so I know what you're trying to defend.

[RandBlade]

Then feel free to pass a law, like this isn't hard. We don't want judges to rule outside of their scope, that's why we have a legislative branch.

The judges haven't legislated from the bench. They've enforced existing laws based upon existing laws that were passed by Congress.

I note you're still refusing to answer the golf question. Quite clearly because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Sacking a woman but not a man for doing the same legal thing unrelated to the job - is that legal or illegal?

[Dreadnaught]

The judges haven't legislated from the bench. They've enforced existing laws based upon existing laws that were passed by Congress.

I note you're still refusing to answer the golf question. Quite clearly because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Sacking a woman but not a man for doing the same legal thing unrelated to the job - is that legal or illegal?

Eh, it's a big leap they made to redefine the definition of "sex". We all know legislators didn't have transexuals and genderqueer people in mind when the legislation was made. Changing the damn legislation would have been much better to prevent yet another instance of good-outcome-but-still-problematic-judicial-legislation.

[Loki]

Eh, it's a big leap they made to redefine the definition of "sex". We all know legislators didn't have transexuals and genderqueer people in mind when the legislation was made. Changing the damn legislation would have been much better to prevent yet another instance of good-outcome-but-still-problematic-judicial-legislation.

And the founding fathers weren't thinking of AKs when they wrote the 2nd amendment. So what?