Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: SCOTUS rules firing LGBT people to be illegal

  1. #1

    Default SCOTUS rules firing LGBT people to be illegal

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #2
    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.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Do you support this decision or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-15-2020 at 09:19 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?

  13. #13
    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.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    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?
    1. The question to RB is about if he would rule on the constitution and laws in a consistent way independent of impact. If he would not, that's a problem because it makes all of our inalienable rights paper thin.

    2. Same answer is number 1 - cheer leading a court system that favors judges making decisions based on their political bias is faulty and would argue against that world view.

    3. I'm in favor of looking at original intent. The purpose of the question is to see if RB supports textulaism in all cases or only when it fits his political agenda. Ultimately there can be an argument for a textualist perspective or intent perspective. The proof that it is genuine would be when you back rulings that cause negative outcomes based on adherence to that way of ruling.

    4. Now that's actually an interesting question.

    One major difference is that prosecutors are allowed an encouraged to use discretion. For example, if a person is already in prison for a life sentence in NY for murder it doesn't make sense for the Miami prosecutor to waste the court's time with theft charge. Or if a person is terminally ill and a court case will take longer than they have left alive. More often it is also a situation on "can beyond a reasonable doubt be proven" - this is tactical. A prosecutor who knowingly brings a case forward that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt needs to find a new job.

    This is all VERY different compared to the judges who are ruling on what the law actually IS. To them we would them to have as perfect impartially as could possibly be. They should be as robotic as we can get because if we allow them to rule based on their own political preferences our essential rights become very threadbare.

    For the police example - that completely depends on the department policies and relevant laws. In general I actually think police should avoid bias wherever possible by being as consistent as possible. We don't want police to decide "ehhh I don't agree with this law so I won't enforce it."

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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?
    It doesn't treat men and women any different. If a man were in the same position regarding same sex relationship he wouldn't have any different rights than the woman in your example. Of course the whole point is rather silly as a company that fires someone for being gay in this climate isn't going to prosper. What the justices did is push an argument through the courts using textualism as a pretext due to a change in how the culture views something. That should concern everyone. The courts should never consider popular sentiment and their own view of right and wrong when deciding cases.

  19. #19
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #20
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #23
    This is why you shouldn't spank your kids.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  24. #24
    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.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post

    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.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    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?

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GGT; 06-23-2020 at 06:20 AM.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    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.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •