Civil Rights

[SeattleUte]

This place needs a dedicated civil rights forum.

Supreme Court Rules for Gay Rights in the Workplace

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/u...rticleShareYes

[PaloAltoCougar]

This place needs a dedicated civil rights forum.

Supreme Court Rules for Gay Rights in the Workplace

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/u...rticleShareYes

It's interesting that the court's opinion was written by Gorsuch, the guy whose critics thought would stop or reverse the advance of civil rights. Kavanaugh wrote a solo dissenting opinion, and it's a good one, including:

They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment.

I'm fine with the result, but as Kavanaugh's opinion reflects, Congress has surrendered much of its authority and function to the Executive and the Judiciary.

[SeattleUte]

It's interesting that the court's opinion was written by Gorsuch, the guy whose critics thought would stop or reverse the advance of civil rights. Kavanaugh wrote a solo dissenting opinion, and it's a good one, including:



I'm fine with the result, but as Kavanaugh's opinion reflects, Congress has surrendered much of its authority and function to the Executive and the Judiciary.

Agree. But this is what happens when Congress is so dysfunctional.

[SeattleUte]

The Crenshaw-Atlas podcast hit all the notes. Even weird thoughts that I thought were my own preoccupation. Like the intolerance for risk to an absurd degree that’s resulted from medical innovation and the end of great wars, the puzzling acquiescence of the whole world in this nonsense, the terrifying realization that governments can do this to us, and the world submits willingly.

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, supreme court... The real question: So is BYU going to get into a P5 conference now?!? BYU can't fire folks that pull a "Bruce Caitlyn Jenner" or something to the like, right? Sounds like a policy change is needed. They might as well make the policy change compatible to something that one of the P5 conferences will like. Please don't let BYU go to the Pac-12, however. That conference sucks.

[SeattleUte]

What a relief that Supreme Court opinion was. Not to be a cynic, but his shows that the public actually does influence the Supreme Court. We've seen this many times before. Ultimately, these old men and women appointed for life and self-designated arbiters of what the law is, are not free. This has been the most important curb on their power, as it should be in our republic. Somebody has to say what the law is, but even the Supreme Court bows to the public will. "Original intent" is itself just a means to a political end.

[Flystripper]

What a relief that Supreme Court opinion was. Not to be a cynic, but his shows that the public actually does influence the Supreme Court. We've seen this many times before. Ultimately, these old men and women appointed for life and self-designated arbiters of what the law is, are not free. This has been the most important curb on their power, as it should be in our republic. Somebody has to say what the law is, but even the Supreme Court bows to the public will. "Original intent" is itself just a means to a political end.

yeah I was relieved too and a mildly surprised.

[Commando]

What a relief that Supreme Court opinion was. Not to be a cynic, but his shows that the public actually does influence the Supreme Court. We've seen this many times before. Ultimately, these old men and women appointed for life and self-designated arbiters of what the law is, are not free. This has been the most important curb on their power, as it should be in our republic. Somebody has to say what the law is, but even the Supreme Court bows to the public will. "Original intent" is itself just a means to a political end.

Agreed. As rigged as the SCOTUS composition is right now, sometimes equity shines through. I've been burning the midnight oil the last couple weeks bracing for that inevitable DACA retraction... :\

[UVACoug]

It's interesting that the court's opinion was written by Gorsuch, the guy whose critics thought would stop or reverse the advance of civil rights. Kavanaugh wrote a solo dissenting opinion, and it's a good one, including:



I'm fine with the result, but as Kavanaugh's opinion reflects, Congress has surrendered much of its authority and function to the Executive and the Judiciary.

I was one of the few around here who thought the reasoning of Justice Kennedy's gay marriage opinion was a joke, and I got lambasted for it. I still stand by that opinion (although I'm happy about the result).

I have the complete opposite view of Gorsuch's opinion in this case. I 100% agree with Justice Kavanaugh that it is not the role of the Supreme Court (or any other court) to amend statutes, even when Congress is as dysfunctional as it is today, just like its my view that it is not the Court's place to invent constitutional rights out of cloth that have no grounding in the text of the Constitution. But I completely disagree that Gorsuch's opinion does that. To know whether a court is "amending" a statute, you have to start with an understanding of what the current statute means. And that depends on the text, not on someone's views about politics or morality or even what the legislature intended when the statue was enacted. And as hard as Justices Alito and Kavanaugh tried, I don't think they laid a finger on Gorsuch's textual analysis, which is pretty unimpeachable from my perspective.

I think the most important consideration of this case, which neither of the dissenting opinions even attempt to deal with head on, is that the question in the case was not really whether Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It obviously doesn't. The real question is whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entails discrimination because of sex. I have yet to see a reasonable argument that it doesn't. In fact, the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity that Justice Alito uses in his opinion include the word "sex." And I don't see how it would be possible to define those characteristics without a reference to sex (or some synonym for it). So, because an employer that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is, by definition, discriminating because of sex, Title VII unambiguously applies.

I don't think the question here is whether the Court should leave it to Congress to resolve these kinds of issues. The real question is what are the issues that Congress needs to resolve? If the Court had held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity does NOT entail discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, then those that think the law should protect LGBT individuals would be required to work to amend the statute. But because the Court (correctly, IMO) concluded that Title VII DOES bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the burden is now on those that think the law should not protect such individuals to fight for an amendment. The question here is not whether Congress should be the one's to legislate on these issues, but who has the burden to legislate to get their views enacted into law.

In my view, Gorsuch's reasoning is consistent with his principled view that statutory interpretation depends on the text and not on the views of individual legislators. The real hypocrites in this decision are those that have previously taken a view consistent with Gorsuch's, but now are dissenting, and those that have previously taken the view that legislative intent is paramount, regardless of the text (e.g., J. Breyer) who joined the majority.

As an aside, while I think Gorsuch's reasoning was unimpeachable, I can't stand his writing style. It comes off as if he is trying to sound pompous when he really isn't. Some of his questions during oral argument come off that way too. It is annoying.

[old_gregg]

the church's amicus brief was embarrassing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0CORRECTED.pdf

[frank ryan]

the church's amicus brief was embarrassing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0CORRECTED.pdf

I’m genuinely taken aback by this.

[Walter Sobchak]

the church's amicus brief was embarrassing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0CORRECTED.pdf

Do you disagree with this?

The right of a religious organization to control the make-up of its workforce is fundamental to achieving its religious mission, promoting its religious beliefs, and being a true faith community. While the ministerial exception and Title VII’s existing religious exemption would provide some defense to SOGI discrimination claims, some lower courts already give cramped interpretations to those protections, denying their application to employees and employment practices that are crucial to a religious organization’s autonomy and mission. In the face of a new SOGI nondiscrimination rule from this Court, the pressure on lower courts to interpret existing religious protections narrowly so as not to undermine the nascent norm will be enormous. Resolving these conflicts will require years of wrenching litigation. Many religious organizations lack the financial and institutional fortitude to weather such battles of attrition.

[old_gregg]

for the record, the kavanaugh dissent is right. but there are some pretty dumb arguments in the amicus brief, including that the church would not have been able to fire a gym janitor for not having a temple recommend like it did in amos. also, that it's "incongruous" for a business associated with a religious sponsor to have employees that either aren't members of that religion or aren't good enough members. tell that to the doctors and nurses at religiously affiliated hospitals that are of a different persuasion.

[old_gregg]

Do you disagree with this?

the "it's going to be hard figure out" argument is dumb as shit. "wrenching litigation"?

[Walter Sobchak]

for the record, the kavanaugh dissent is right. but there are some pretty dumb arguments in the amicus brief, including that the church would not have been able to fire a gym janitor for not having a temple recommend like it did in amos. also, that it's "incongruous" for a business associated with a religious sponsor to have employees that either aren't members of that religion or aren't good enough members. tell that to the doctors and nurses at religiously affiliated hospitals that are of a different persuasion.

I missed the janitor example... can you give me a page number? Page 9 (24/52) has these:

• A man sues a church for being dismissed as an in-house attorney after he enters a samesex marriage in violation of the church’s doctrines on marriage.
• A woman in a same-sex relationship sues an association of churches for rejecting her application to be chief financial officer based on failure to believe and comply with church doctrines on sexuality.
• A transgender woman sues when not hired as a chapel architect at a denominational headquarters.

the "it's going to be hard figure out" argument is dumb as shit. "wrenching litigation"?

Wrenching litigation that will last years and cost millions of dollars should be music to your ears!