LGBTQ+ Victory

[mjbabcock]

That Trumps Uber conservative appointee wrote the decision against his Uber hateful argument is poetic justice.

Today is a good day.

[guido]

That Trumps Uber conservative appointee wrote the decision against his Uber hateful argument is poetic justice.

Today is a good day.

Indeed!

[mzilliox]

links to stories? im outta the loop

[GrantM]

links to stories? im outta the loop

The Supreme Court outlaws anti-LGBTQ employment discrimination in Bostock v. Clayton County.

" If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men,
the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague."

that's discrimination based on sex, case closed. next?

-g

[e-RICHIE]

Moving to The OT.
But yeah.
Smells. Like. Victory.

[theflashunc]

The over-riding, longer-term concern is the philosophical rejection of stare decisis by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and others in the newly ascendant conservative wing of the court. This is another case to throw on that woodpile from the last year or so that this court will largely whipsaw and ignore prior precedent no matter how deeply established in the case law.

I won't look a gift horse in the mouth and this is a good day, but the pessimist in me could easily see this as laying the groundwork for a Roe v Wade overturn as this court continues to ignore precedent across a whole range of matters. And, Gorsuch is also the guy who argued a trucker could be fired from his job for abandoning a broken down big rig in a blizzard to find safe shelter. It's not like he has much of a mind for historically vulnerable and marginalized groups.

[j44ke]

links to stories? im outta the loop

Civil Rights Law Protects L.G.B.T. Workers, Supreme Court Rules - The New York Times

Basically the court said "We don't need no stinkin' Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. We got all we need in Title VII to protect LGBTQ+ Americans from discrimination."

But yeah, also what Flash said. Don't turn your back on Gorsuch.

It does make the Trump administration's actions last week interesting. They knew this decision was coming up. Did they get a tip off on the decision? Or did they figure if they got rid of the protections now, they'd either be vindicated by the decision or rendered moot, so why not get some kudos from their constituency in the meantime. I figure it is the latter.

[theflashunc]

We'll see if we're still singing Gorsuch's praises when the Court rules Trump doesn't need to release his taxes.

[j44ke]

We'll see if we're still singing Gorsuch's praises when the Court rules Trump doesn't need to release his taxes.

I think that most lawyers will look at this case and realize that if they can keep their definitions and categorizations narrow and finite - literally the word is the word - then they have a chance at enticing Gorsuch into 5-4 decisions or even 6-3 decisions if they bring Roberts along.

Roberts is very interesting. I don't trust him, but he at least looks out his window at the country when he makes his decisions. And I think he is fully aware of the role of Chief Justice in preserving the credibility of the Supreme Court.

[theflashunc]

I think that most lawyers will look at this case and realize that if they can keep their definitions and categorizations narrow and finite - literally the word is the word - then they have a chance at enticing Gorsuch into 5-4 decisions or even 6-3 decisions if they bring Roberts along.

Roberts is very interesting. I don't trust him, but he at least looks out his window at the country when he makes his decisions. And I think he is fully aware of the role of Chief Justice in preserving the credibility of the Supreme Court.

And yet Roberts is the author of Shelby County v Holder, with the entire underlying logic being "welp, racism's dead, no need for this Voting Rights Act stuff anymore." It's up there with Citizens United as two of the worst decisions by the court in the last half century.

I feel like Roberts is doing just enough to try to stay this side of the Dred Scott decision to not be running the worst Supreme Court in the country's history.

[j44ke]

And yet Roberts is the author of Shelby County v Holder, with the entire underlying logic being "welp, racism's dead, no need for this Voting Rights Act stuff anymore." It's up there with Citizens United as two of the worst decisions by the court in the last half century.

I feel like Roberts is doing just enough to try to stay this side of the Dred Scott decision to not be running the worst Supreme Court in the country's history.

Definitely two extraordinarily naive decisions. I know there are some signals - largely through (retired) Justice Stevens - that Citizens is viewed with regret by at least one of the supporting justices. Not that it does any good for anyone, but it does present an opportunity for lawyers before the court to play off on that regret, particularly (as I understand) Roberts. Having just a peak vicariously through friends at the ACLU and my wife's work for them, the science of shaping arguments is pretty incredible. You sound like you are probably a lawyer, so you must be familiar with it. But I was pretty amazed at how closely the Supreme Court justices are scrutinized, tabulated, dissected, etc. etc. etc. just to find that one word or phrase or idea that would capture their curiosity and perhaps sway them in the desired direction.

[Will Neide]

Definitely two extraordinarily naive decisions. I know there are some signals - largely through (retired) Justice Stevens - that Citizens is viewed with regret by at least one of the supporting justices. Not that it does any good for anyone, but it does present an opportunity for lawyers before the court to play off on that regret, particularly (as I understand) Roberts. Having just a peak vicariously through friends at the ACLU and my wife's work for them, the science of shaping arguments is pretty incredible. You sound like you are probably a lawyer, so you must be familiar with it. But I was pretty amazed at how closely the Supreme Court justices are scrutinized, tabulated, dissected, etc. etc. etc. just to find that one word or phrase or idea that would capture their curiosity and perhaps sway them in the desired direction.

Marginal gains.

[Too Tall]

No, no sir this is huge and we made a huge tray of brownies to share with anyone who shares our joy.

Hell yes.

[rowdyhillrambler]

I’m kind of stunned here...

Really..

I’m thinking that even the Trumpladites are seeing the writing on the wall? There’s no hope in this Dope?

[Mabouya]

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world (which the US would more closely resemble if those complaining about the SCOTUS ruling had their way)

Arrested for Waving Rainbow Flag, a Gay Egyptian Takes Her Life - The New York Times

"Charged with “inciting debauchery,” Sarah Hegazi was jailed and tortured."

[j44ke]

I was in the DMV at Herald Square in NYC getting my driver's license. Seated behind me two men were talking. One was from a gay men's support organization and the other person was a Russian citizen who had gotten asylum in the US. The former was helping the latter negotiate the process of getting a driver's license after having gotten the necessary paperwork from the federal government sorted out. The part that caught my attention was the Russian man saying "The police tied my arms together at the elbows and handcuffed me to the bars...."

[72gmc]

There’s no hope in this Dope?

One writer hopes so... The Supreme Court outlaws anti-LGBTQ employment discrimination in Bostock v. Clayton County.

It's interesting to see "the word is the word" applied now. I've wounded my eyes rolling them so hard at Justice Thomas et al trying to cosplay the "framer's intent" so many times. Maybe sticking to the words and the current time period (instead of trying to pull us back to 1964, Justice Alito) leads to more positive than negative outcomes when it comes to individual rights.