From "Supreme Court Expansion of Transgender Rights Undercuts Trump Restrictions/The ruling focused on employment discrimination, but legal scholars say its language could force expanded civil rights protections in education, health care, housing and other areas of daily life" (NYT).
Why is "sex" in quotes? I'd say the Court's case is also at odds with the effort to banish talk of sex and replace it with the concept of gender. I wonder, now will there be a new focus on sex?
Monday’s case was focused on employment law, a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII. But Justice Neil M. Gorsuch’s opinion used language that is likely to apply to numerous areas of law where there is language preventing discrimination “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex.” Under the ruling, discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity ran afoul of the standard....He's read the decision. Ha ha. Did anyone tell him it was 172 pages long before he concocted that lie? I assume it's a lie. And go ahead and bullshit that if you've read any of the opinion — a paragraph, say — you've "read the decision."
“They’ve ruled,” [President Trump] said. “I’ve read the decision, and some people were surprised, but they’ve ruled and we live with their decision.”
Anyway, I'm sure he doesn't mind the Supreme Court taking this pesky issue out of his hair.* "They’ve ruled and we live with their decision." If he really objected, he'd talk about how important it is to reelect him so he can appoint more Justices like Kavanaugh. Oh, but there is the complication that his #1 choice for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, wrote the opinion. He can't purport to have the power to control where the Court goes with all the legal issues.
But I don't think Trump is keen to hold back gay and transgender people. At most, he hopes to maintain the enthusiasm of the religious conservatives he needs to get reelected. But I don't think he is the slightest bit interested in reining in sexual — or gender — expression. Has he ever reined in his own?
______________________
* His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair.
पोस्ट्स
१७५ टिप्पण्या:
Let’s have a full Althouse analysis on the decision. I’ve read parts of it and agree with Alito. SCOTUS just rewrote a statute.
Anyone who really cares about gay and transgender people would want their protections enshrined in legislation. What the Supreme Court giveth it can taketh away. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked an advance in Western Civilization in a way that a court decision extending the same rights never could have.
This is exactly what Jesus wants.
* His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair.
You are really feeling the hate today, aren't you Althouse.
"Let’s have a full Althouse analysis on the decision. I’ve read parts of it and agree with Alito. SCOTUS just rewrote a statute."
It's just a statute. Congress is free to change it. Let's see if they try. Ha ha.
What's "a full Althouse analysis" in your view? I'm sure it's not mine.
Its 175 pages, but a big part is an appendix full of government forms that distinguish sex from gender identity and sexual orientation.
I firmly believe that Donald Trump lies willingly. I don't think that every time he says something incorrect it is a lie, however. "Civilians" to a field often use the wrong term and although he has spent a lot of time with lawyers over the years he isn't one. (To be honest, he would probably say he could do it "perfectly") I would agree that he got the term wrong, but there is no proof he lied.
RoseAnne
Gorsuch didn't rewrite the statute. He looked at the language of the statute and refused to write an exception to it. If you think that's bullshit, fine, but it's no less bullshit than the Alito interpretation that you like or your purporting to like it on the basis of its more faithful understanding of text.
Would be interesting to do a side by side comparison of Althouse's hair color to Trump's. His face is the orange thing right? Not his hair? His hair seems a fairly normal bleached blond.
I'd bet Trump got an executive summary to outline the meaning of the SCOTUS decision. In tweeting, brevity is everything. TDS afflicted people go all hair-on-fire with every tweet that is not exact. I think Trump does this on purpose to enrage the lefties.
Gorsuch didn't rewrite the statute.
Bullshit, Althouse. The entire statute was written about penises and vaginas that people were born with, not imputed.
I'm not sure why you're on a tear against the President today, but in case you're confused, the man is a multi-billionaire President with a gorgeous wife and the ability to hold a mass audience spellbound. Unlike aging feminist law professors, Donald Trump enjoys a vast number of possibilities to indulge his sexuality. After the shamelessness of Bill Clinton, who had vastly inferior choice of bed mates, I'm only surprised Trump doesn't bring his ex-wives into some sort of grandiose DC harem. Maybe he's saving that for after re-election.
Or maybe he genuinely cares about his new wife, and her support during the hardest four years of his life has made him less inclined to take the undisciplined Clinton option. Who's to say.
Well, we certainly see that the Constitutional Law professor prefers results over process. Alito was exactly right.
To the not a lawyer the decision is the judgement.
Just rename the bathrooms the penis room and the vagina room.
There is palpable glee in the house of Althouse, that’s fine, I don’t disagree with the case, I hate the cowardly congress who won’t risk their elected hides to do what should be done in the legislature instead of the court though.
I find the hair ad hominem unseemly.
I too did not read all 170 odd pages, but I did read the results of the case as reported. Did I read the case? Not to law prof standards I guess.
Is there something about this case that makes people hate Trump more?
Like Kevin said yesterday.....Once again the court does what Congress is unwilling to do. And in doing so, makes Congress all the more dysfunctional.
Alito wrote that an LGBTQ bill was introduced, but it never passed. SCOTUS interprets the law; it doesn’t rewrite it.
You give away your policy preference when you wrote, “Let’s see if they try. Ha. Ha.”
As to a full Althouse analysis, you know what I’m talking about. Legal, textual, careful and scholarly. Not law review quality, but close.
Why are you so angry with Trump about this? You are happy with the decision and Trump said that his administration will abide by it.
I'm not a legal expert at all but I imagine an enormous legal issue when sex/gender becomes mutable and based upon personal belief and does not remain a fixed legal status, subject to change at any time.
I imagine that if sex/gender were such, there should no longer be ANY law or government policy where sex/gender is an influencing or deciding factor.
Lastly, let's deal with the biological reality: With extremely rare exception, your biological gender is assigned at conception chromosomally.
I’m just glad that we’re discovered a law related topic that receives more than the standard word definition type Althouse response.
"I assume it's a lie."
"Decision" can have a broader meaning to laymen than to lawyers.
To be clear, I’m against employment discrimination based upon LGTQ status. But Congress should pass a law.
Evidently Congress agrees with Alito's interpretation of the statute since it has unsuccessfully attempted to pass in recent years the very changes that were disputed in the court case. Based on this Gorsuch rewrote the statute. This can't be Gorsuch refusing to grant 'exceptions' to statute that Congress clearly knows were not there in the first place.
He's read the decision. Ha ha. Did anyone tell him it was 172 pages long before he concocted that lie? I assume it's a lie. And go ahead and bullshit that if you've read any of the opinion — a paragraph, say — you've "read the decision."
@Althouse, I have read a synopsis of the decision prepared by a brighter legal mind than yours, and by “I have read the decision “ I assume Trump has done the same. This will come as a rude shock to a superannuated hippie chick like you, but Donald Trump is not one of your students and doesn’t have to do what the professor tells him to do if he wants to pass the class. If he wants to say that he read the decision after reading a synopsis, he’s within his rights. As am I.
The contention between the two views from yesterday is understandable and unavoidable. If we don't want to to be litigating every aspect of life, the solution is to stop trying to engineer society through overweening legislation like Title VII, yes, even of the vaunted Civil Rights Act of 1964. To make sure I wasn't saying anything terrifically stupid, I just reread the history of Title VII and the peculiar role Virginia Democrat Howard Smith played in its creation -- adding "sex" at the very last minute to the list of things upon which no one could discriminate even while he opposed the entire bill. Did he throw that in there thinking it would torpedo the legislation? And have we been contorting and twisting ourselves into misery because of that little failed of his trying to overload it and wreck it?
Access to school bathrooms would be determined by biology, not gender identity.
Bathrooms are about plumbing. Both the bathroom's, and the user's.
The Althouse commentary following "He's read the decision" seems petty. It is unlikely that the president pored over all 170+ pages of the written opinion, but instead looked at a summary of the decision and its rationale, prepared by someone else. Taking his words to be literal in a highly technical sense, and then concluding that he's "lying" just seems trivial. Sheesh.
Let’s have a full Althouse analysis on the decision.
We got that full Althouse analysis yesterday. She was too busy applauding the decision to care if it was legally well grounded or good a good proper exercise in judicial power.
Althouse is a typical liberal. She just wants her personal political position enshrined in law. Then she'll tell you to shut up and take it. Hater!
Althouse cheers.
It's a useful weathervane.
Note that by the reasoning of the decision, it is sexual discrimination to prohibit cisgender men from using the women's bathroom, if that's how they get their jollies. No need to pretend to be transgender.
"But I don't think Trump is keen to hold back gay and transgender people." --AA
Yes, the sky is still blue.
* It's a good thing that women never color, poof up or spray their hair. Because it's so laughable, right?
What specific policy has Trump pursued that you find seriously objectionable? What specific executive action have you found frightening or out of the bounds of normal politics? Or is simply the tweeting that you dislike?
"If he really objected, he'd talk about how important it is to reelect him so he can appoint more Justices like Kavanaugh."
Well, you also maintain that he needs evangelical enthusiasm in order to win. I'd think that that statement makes Trump's personal level of objection irrelevant - by that statement, he should have immediately made the point that reelecting him means more justices like Kavanaugh and electing Biden means more decisions like this one.
So maybe he thinks evangelical enthusiasm is not at risk?
I have read the entire document.
The full Opinion of the Court only runs 37 pages, and the syllabus, which outlines the decision and provides their findings, is only 4 pages.
The remaining 137 pages is the dissent, which includes 49 pages of appendixes.
One can fairly say they have “read the opinion” by simply reading the syllabus.
@Ann,
"What's "a full Althouse analysis" in your view? I'm sure it's not mine."
I would like an annotated version of the decision, with your comments on every paragraph.
I'm sure 'law professor' Obama would have read every word of the decision by now. Every word. Right?
There's no basketball being played, so he wouldn't have to take time away from creating his bracket.
So much for "cruel neutrality."
"He's read the decision. Ha ha. Did anyone tell him it was 172 pages long before he concocted that lie? I assume it's a lie"
Huh?
The "decision" was one line, maybe two. The opinion(s) pages and pages of stuff. Cuz law.
And by Althouse’s (and Gorsuch’s) contention that all that was done was “refusing to carve out an exception to the word ‘sex’), I guess that means I cannot be fired for screwing (having sex with) a coworker on my desk, until and unless SCOTUS carves out an “exception” for that.
Question: why would a gay person want to work for a person or organization that wants to fire them for being gay?
If an employer hated me for my skin color, sexuality, ethnic background, etc. I'd be looking very hard for a new job. Because I don't want to work for someone like that.
But in 2020 America everything which is not forbidden is compulsory. There is no space left for individual taste, discretion or bias.
And believe me, we are all biased in some way. But the state tells us we must reprogram ourselves or face ostracism, ruination, jail time -- or worse: sensitivity training.
"He looked at the language of the statute and refused to write an exception to it"
Reaching a result so clear and obvious, in spite of the fact that it would not have occurred to anyone in 1964, that for more than half a century Congress itself could not bring itself to state what was clear and obvious.
"Bullshit, Althouse. The entire statute was written about penises and vaginas that people were born with, not imputed."
Read the opinion and you'll see that your point is entirely consistent with Gorsuch's analysis! Really, you say bullshit, but you don't know what you are talking about. Educate yourself. Read and understand the opinion. It's obvious that you have not done the groundwork for calling bullshit competently.
Althouse isn’t used to working around CEOs. When the top guy says “I read it” they always mean “I read the executive summary.” The ones who then follow up with insightful questions you know have actually read into the report. Now turn your snark to all the reporters telling us what the ruling “says” without actually reading it. You know they’re only reading the last page or the highlights too. You going with the judgement call “lie” on their behalf too?
The text of the Court's decision is only 33 pages. The rest is the 2 dissents and various attachments thereto. Ann's assumption that Trump couldn't have read the actual decision of the court is pretty strained and unnecessary.
I've not read the entire thing, though I did skim it looking for keywords (mainly because I wanted to see how accurate the media portrayal was). I did notice this part:
"When an employer fires an employee because she is homosexual or transgender, two causal factors may be in play— both the individual’s sex and something else (the sex to which the individual is attracted or with which the individual identifies). But Title VII doesn’t care. If an employer would not have discharged an employee but for that individual’s sex, the statute’s causation standard is met, and liability may attach. "
The sex the individual identifies with is the something else which is separate from the sex being discriminated against. Presumably this could also apply to men who identify as men or women who identify as women, but either way there is a stated divide between what they are and what they identify as.
While I doubt this establishes a precedent that people are the sex they are born as (there are other sections that nod to sex being assigned at birth), it looks like it leaves plenty of room for that argument in the future.
"* His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair. "
--
Thanks for that important clarification
this is a war on people, on normality, I think mother gorsuch would be very dissapointed, it was one of those obama rules designed to cause chaos,
Kudos to Gorsuch for following his judicial principals and not tortuously twisting logic to get the outcome he most likely would have preferred in this case. AS Althouse has pointed out, Congress can rewrite the statute if they disagree with how the Court construed it.
When are they going to make a statue that you can't fire Trump supporters?? That's the greatest discrimination going on today. They are getting beaten, spit at, fired, ect….. Equality for all and all that stuff. We live in upside down world.
I warned you about Gorsuch at the time.
He gave me vibes that he was unsound.
He switched from Catholic to COE/Episcopal.
This is always a very bad sign.
And I'm not joking.
Which word -- sex or gender -- is used in the US Constitution's penumbra and emanations?
I read it too. And it’s not 172 pages. The majority opinion is 33 pages.
This seems like one of those Supreme Court decisions that is obviously wrong in the analysis, but the court won't get called on its abuse of power because all the right people like the outcome.
FWIW, I support the outcome too, but I care about the constitution and I care about process. Anyone who says that congress meant to include something they clearly never even thought of is lying. Though lying they may be, the solution here is for congress to step up and take it out of the court's hands by saying what they mean today. Which they won't do because congress is still all about foisting the dirty work onto the other branches any time they can.
*big FAT lie. Like his BIG FAT...
Why are you so angry with Trump about this?
Althouse is like a child. She is angry at Trump for putting her in a situation where she will vote for him. The mere thought of pulling the lever for Trump sickens her. He is everything she abhors. He is loud, crass and unapologetically male.
She has already said Biden disqualified himself so she can't vote for him. The Dems have gone off the rails and are now a danger to her and financial health.
Her only hope of getting out of this quandary is for Trump to do something that will disqualify him and allow her to vote against him.
Gay and trans rights are near and dear to Althouse. She has a lot of emotional baggage around the issues. So we have a SCt case expanding those rights. One of Trump's appointments wrote the decision. Then Trump had to go and say he'll respect the decision.
In a perfect world neither of those things would have happened. Althouse could then be relieved of her dilemma. She could say Trump lost her by his hateful rhetoric and he has to accept the decision and stop fighting it.
But unfortunately for her, all she can do is stomp her little feet and be the petty spoiled little girl.
PS don't get me wrong. Althouse will latch onto something, anything, to vote against Trump. She's just hoping he will do something that will give her a good excuse. But she'll never vote for the man.
It doesn't matter what you wish is true, DNA can't be changed. The trans people are deranged, but that fits all libs so no wonder they take up the cause.
“You are really feeling the hate today, aren't you Althouse.”
Althouse triggered Maybee with the Trump hair color talk. Too funny.
Why am I not surprised that the majority of the commenters here are against the decision? Let’s all focus on big burly transvestites scaring little girls in bathrooms and on other non existent threats posed by LGTB people on society at large, because the religious right demands it and many people on the right just can’t think for themselves. Let’s never move away from denying human rights to humans, that’s the kind of stuff we hear in the Althouse comments sections by the majority of the commenters. I’ve often wondered how she could stand the majority of her own commenters.
Disclaimer: I have not read the full opinion and dissent. I have not researched the creation of the civil rights act and thus do not know the intent of the authors. I am generally very much on the side of the rock-ribbed conservatives, but in this case I side with Gorsuch. My reasoning is thus:
1. The fact of discrimination in hiring is abhorrent. A person's attributes that are not performance related should not be a basis to deny them employment. Given that Conservatives greatly espouse that people should work and take responsibility for their own welfare, supporting anything that limits one's ability to gain employment should be anathema. Let me also say that I am disgusted with the many right-wing people who denigrate the rainbow people. I think that they have pushed agendas that harm society, but the vitriol leveled at them by the right is ugly. It also drives compassionate people into the arms of the left, so it is a form of self-goal.
2. We talk about original meaning, and that is open to interpretation. There are two ways you can look at this. We can take the exact meaning of the words written, or we can understand the meaning of the statute intent. A poor but, I think relevant, corollary is the 2nd amendment. We fight over whether the founders intended assault since they had no idea they existed. The conservatives would say that the understanding if the 2nd is that it meant all weapons even if they were not part of the knowledge of the writers. The same argument can be made for Title VII. They meant to squash hiring discrimination. They listed out the key elements, but just because they did not list out every one that exists today does not mean they should thus be excluded. One could argue that the spirit was to eliminate discrimination based on characteristics of the person such as race, color, gender, not that it meant ONLY those specific characteristics.
I do think that it would have been better for Congress to do this, but the political reality is that there are too many on the right who want to stop people from flying their freak flag, thus this would not pass in the congress. A court mandated solution is not at the level of activism, in this case, though it is troublesome. However, by doing this, though, it will remove some of the reason for moderates to feel they need to vote in leftists to achieve justice for the minority. Could be helpful for Trump on the margins.
The other concerns are more troubling which is why I cannot give unabashed support for the decision. We have some real conflicts of rights and protections with the transgender and gender fluid issues, and we do not help by denigrating each other over it. We have a conflict in understanding about what our nation stands for: are we a christian society or a pluralistic society? Many still cling to the idea that we need to support Christian morality rather than Christian compassion. That tension will remain with us for a while. However, we also have people who want to celebrate their differences in a way that offends and marginalizes other people, and that is wrong as well. We need to be buck up and deal with this head on and maturely. We should make it clear that cis-gender women have a right to limit who can get nekkid with them, and who can compete with them in sports. This whole "it is demeaning to tell a man->woman that he/she cannot play with and undress with bio-women" is wrong. Sorry, that is infringing on the rights of people. Your challenges in life should not impose directly on other people. Ultimately we are going to have to make his/hers/fluids bathrooms. It will cost money, but that is a price you pay for freedom. Same with sports. 3 groups.
Sorry about the lengthy post, quoting another take from NR, just FYI:
"But Gorsuch completely ignores the central issue in the transgender-discrimination case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, that was actually before the Court — and in a way that makes nonsense of his effort to use that syllogism to resolve the statutory question. In Harris, a funeral home had separate dress codes for men and women; a biological male (Stephens) began “living as a woman” and was fired for dressing as a woman. Under Gorsuch’s reasoning, this would qualify as sex discrimination because a woman would not be fired for dressing as a woman. But that assumes that the Court has decided whether Stephens is a woman, which of course is the entire question in debate in arguments about the legal and social status of transgenderism. In fact, Stephens contends that Stephens is not a man. The Harris Funeral Home enforced its dress code against Stephens not to discriminate against women dressing as women, but because it believed that Stephens was a man. The Court’s decision assumes that this is a decision that can be punished — an assumption that would have made no sense at the time the statutory term “sex” was written, in 1964.
Consider: What if the funeral home also employed a drag queen — a biological male (like Stephens) who identified as male (unlike Stephens) but dressed in women’s clothes (like Stephens)? The funeral home could say — truthfully — that it does not allow men to dress as women, and since the drag queen employee does not identify as a woman, it could argue that the drag queen was treated the same as any other man would be. Under the standard Gorsuch announces, Stephens and the drag queen are both biological men dressed as women. Could only one of them could sue? To reach that result, the Court has to go beyond the simple syllogism and decide the underlying question: Who is a woman? Yet, just as it did in Roe v. Wade (deciding who is a human) or Obergefell v. Hodges (deciding what is a marriage), the Court actually decided the most important question in the case without even admitting it was doing so."
Educate yourself.
LOL, the cry of the smug. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hands and shoulders, Althouse, but I'm sure the hypereducated could make that argument. Same as discrimination based on sex (found in my uneducated reading of and the history of the statute) has nothing to do with sexuality.
But in 2020 America everything which is not forbidden is compulsory. There is no space left for individual taste, discretion or bias.
Now they'll have to not hire people because they're too funny-looking, and fire them if they transition to funny-looking after they're hired.
"The administration has been working to pursue a narrow definition of sex as biologically determined at birth, and to tailor its civil rights laws to meet it.
This could more easily (and truthfully) be rewritten as:
The administration has been working to adhere to the age-old and factually based definition of sex as biologically determined at birth (as opposed to the newest fad interpretation) as it considers changes to civil rights laws.
But then that is not "getting with the program" now, is it?
Althouse noted: * His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair.
It seems that your own ugly words and bigotry always shine through when the topic is gay or transgender opponents of conservative norms.
Every time. And it's one of the characteristics I least admire about you.
and it shoots the heck out of girls athletics
Althouse: “Did anyone tell him it was 172 pages long before he concocted that lie?”
Despite your emotional commitment to Gorsuch’s claptrap, surely you aren’t suggesting that it contains 172 pages worth reading. We’ve read it all before, Griswold, Roe, Obergefell, etc., emanations from penumbras, words don’t really mean what they say, the mantras of the leftist judge here penned by a supposed conservative.
It is never necessary to read the whole opinion to know what it says or to claim to have read it in cases like these. Any lawyer could write it beginning with, “Regardless of the law, here is my preference.”
Now Alito’s dissent ... that is another story.
I wonder why Trump feels the need to cater to the "religious right"?
The so-called "religious right" are firmly in camp Trump.
If Trump is worried about losing this 'so-called' group, the internal polling must be bad. Not that I trust polling.
As far as Trump's BS that he read it? LOL - Nancy Pelosi didn't even read her own legislation as it pertained to our health care system over-haul and destruction.
Do any of these losers in government read what their bureaucratic staffers do to us?
“Some people were surprised.” That makes me laugh more than “I read the decision.”
Trump is very funny.
Congress can change this, but won't. Congress under Pelosi is a steaming pile of half digested vomit, a mess completely useless that nobody even wants to clean up.
Althouse: “It’s just a statute. Congress is free to change it. Let's see if they try. Ha ha.”
Oh, Althouse, they have tried - to make it say something akin to what Gorsuch claims it says. If only they had known it wasn’t necessary, but they thought they were contending with a Supreme Court, not a super legislature full of love bugs.
So much for your erudite law professor posturing.
As I posited yesterday, the degree to which the Gorsuch decision over-stepped the line and effectively rewrote the statute is in the application of the court's new definition of "sex" to the existing but-for causation standard of Title VII in a way that congress absolutely never contemplated.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal..."
In the comments below:
1. Make a list of all the people government should have the authority to support discrimination against...
2. Show me in Constitution where the feds have the authority to tell private businesses who they should hire or serve...
Not trick questions. I mean if we are going to get Americans even more divided we should be honest about what we are dealing with.
Posted by KrisAnne Hall on Facebook
I'd like to know if the ruling allows males to compete in female sports. I don't understand legalese and its ramifications enough to discern the answer. Usually this is the best site for parsing a decision. Too much cruel and not enough neutrality, though, for my taste today.
To those who are criticizing Althouse here or on any other thread - you are wasting your time. She never admits she is wrong. She is the school marm. There is no higher authority. Know your place, peon.
"But I don't think Trump is keen to hold back gay and transgender people. At most, he hopes to maintain the enthusiasm of the religious conservatives he needs to get reelected."
My take has always been that Trump (on a personal level) doesn't really give a shit either way. BUT...as a policy matter he doesn't believe it should be a federal issue, and he certainly doesn't think the federal government needs to weigh in on how people go to the bathroom. So yesterday, Trump says "okay, the Supreme Court says this is a federal issue, I guess its a federal issue. Move on." He actually responded the way I would have predicted.
I also love how many media personalities lost their monocles in their oatmeal because Gorsuch wrote the opinion. Also, not shocking to those paying attention.
Althouse: “Gorsuch didn't rewrite the statute. He looked at the language of the statute and refused to write an exception to it.”
Yes, because all that stuff you learned about looking to legislative history in ConLaw and ALL your classes requiring statutory interpretation was bullshit. Today, all you need to know is that slippery judges and law professors can rationalize anything. But Trump’s a liar.
Besides, everybody knows, and always has known, that “sex” is determined by personal preference, not biology. Bwahahahaha.
Keep digging, Professor. The sooner you folks bring it all crashing down the better.
The whole decision is legal activism. Its no different then the BS Roe v. Wade decision or Gay Marriage decision. The whole point of the SOTUS is to allow the power elite to IMPOSE their views on the American people, without going through the Democratic process. It has ZERO to do with the actual Constitution or in many cases the laws on the books.
The D's know this, and appoint Judges that are 100% liberals and vote the Politically Correct way. Only the R's are stupid and gullible enough to believe all this bullshit about "Original meaning" and "not being political activist". If the Judge isn't a hardcore Conservative, don't appoint them. Fucking Judas Priest, how often do the dumb social conservatives rubes have to be fooled before they wake Up!
Trump doesn't give a rats ass about "Transgenders" one way or the other. He probably thinks its weird, and if you gave him unlimited power, he'd probably keep them out of the military and tolerate them, but give them no special rights. But I doubt he cares enough to spend time on the issue.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the Calf. sanctuary state issue, whereby Calf refuses to enforce Federal immigration laws. The Federal Government can retaliate, but only to the extent a Judge allows them. That is REAL bullshit. Its a violation of the power of the Executive. The judges SHOULD have no power to tell the President he can't withhold money or punish a state. But we now have a crazy situation whereby an un-elected district Judge (there a 1,0000) actually run the Federal Government. Nothing can be done without their approval. They even decided WHO can attend a white press conference. But the Congress puts up with it, because they don't want to do anything except take bribes and pass out money.
Was it only after Roe v. Wade ruling that we came to believe that the Supreme Court was the referee for every single issue, large or small, that arose in matters of people's "sex" and sex lives?
I'm tired of the pursuit of victimhood. I'm tired of legalizing issues that are private.
I'm also tired of refracting every question through an is-it-good-for-Trump lens.
It's bad enough that we have to pay attention to politics, but to let our political biases distort our ability to think rationally is madness.
I have not truly studied the opinions yet, but Ann strikes me as probably right. And what some conservatives are missing is the very conservative subtextual premise of the majority's reasoning, which is that people are either male or female, and non-discrimination simply means that employers nay not tolerate certain preferences or behaviors in one sex but not the other. While the holding is certainly not consistent with legislative intent, it is nonetheless a straightforward application of a text's plain meaning. If Congress passes a law that says X while intending to say Y, X is still the law. At least if due process means anything at all.
Ric Grenell, one of Trump's best appointments is openly gay. Trump has no problem with the issue.
These documents don't read like a mystery novel - you don't need to get to the end to find out who dun it.
Isn't it more like: "here's our decision (1 page); and here's why (171 pages)."
I would like to know how this might affect women's sports and sex-segregated places, such as prisons and homeless shelters.
His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair
Now that you mention it there’s always been something beard-like about Trump’s many women — not that there’s anything wrong with that!
“... a narrow definition of sex as biologically determined ....”
Wow! I missed that. “A narrow definition?”
How about, “a narrow definition of species as biologically determined.” When I was a sex crimes prosecutor I ran into a few people who thought they were sheep. How about that, Mr. Justice Gorsuch and Co.?
Sex and sex-correlated gender attributes. The transgender spectrum covers deviation from normal including the stable (e.g. homosexual) to unstable (e.g. neosexual) through medical corruption and indoctrination.
The court determined the sexes are male, female, and other. Many more others if you so choose to identify.
Complete bullshit.
Redefined marriage. Redefined human biology.
What's next?
SCOTUS just rewrote a statute.
Conflation of sex and gender, and denying the narrow normal distribution of the former and latter. The precedent is selective-child ("Pro-Choice") that conflated life and a colorful clump of cells for the sake of social and medical progress and profit. Then there is diversity including color quotas, color blocs, not limited to skin color ("race"). There has been significant progress to confuse and suppress the issues.
in the US Constitution's penumbra and emanations?
Under the Twilight Amendment to the Constitution, everything is legal/ethical/moral, em-pathetic. That said, throw another baby... fetus... Fetal-American on the barbie.
> But I don't think Trump is keen to hold back gay and transgender people.
"hold back"
> Read the opinion and you'll see that your point is entirely consistent with Gorsuch's analysis!
Blah blah, lost in the weeds
What's is the fallout of this judicial legislating?
Are we forced to bake the cake?
"I would like to know how this might affect women's sports and sex-segregated places, such as prisons and homeless shelters."
Too late.
Decades of women voting based on women's issues has begot a government that can decide that a man is a woman.
On the plus side, a lot of guys who couldn't make the NBA can now join the WNBA real easy.
LeBron could cross over after his NBA career is done and rack up a few more titles.
I am Laslo.
Mike Petrie wrote: “And what some conservatives are missing is the very conservative subtextual premise of the majority's reasoning, which is that people are either male or female, ....”
We’re not missing it, Mike. We’re calling bullshit. It is fodder for confirmation bias.
Here is the crux of your post, “While the holding is certainly not consistent with legislative intent ....” Congress passed the law in 1964. It says exactly what they intended it to say, not what Gorsuch claims it says or implies. This is not just trivial.
BTW, our concerns are about the Court’s integrity and unintended consequences. For the most part we are not concerned about the result although it is ridiculous. It is just another step in the moral and intellectual, not to mention scientific, degradation of the country.
It's just a statute. Congress is free to change it.
And what good would changing the statue do, as long as the court has the power to rewrite it as they see fit?
It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood. - Karl Popper
...especially when the correct results require misunderstanding
Consider: What if the funeral home also employed a drag queen — a biological male (like Stephens) who identified as male (unlike Stephens) but dressed in women’s clothes (like Stephens)? The funeral home could say — truthfully — that it does not allow men to dress as women, and since the drag queen employee does not identify as a woman, it could argue that the drag queen was treated the same as any other man would be. Under the standard Gorsuch announces, Stephens and the drag queen are both biological men dressed as women. Could only one of them could sue? }}}
It does raise fascinating questions. Can the decision be read to simply outlaw any dress code based on sex, period?
Bill, Republic of Texas said...Gay and trans rights are near and dear to Althouse.
Trans issues are unrelated to gay issues and most gays are no more interested in fighting about trans rights than you are. The T in LGBT is just a sign of how little the lobbying group cares about the views and interests of the people it supposedly lobbies for.
> “I’ve read the decision, and some people were surprised, but they’ve ruled and we live with their decision.”
Contrast with your "oh so presidential" boyfriend Obama
What did he do with Citizens United decision on Hillary the Movie?
rcocean said...
Trump doesn't give a rats ass about "Transgenders" one way or the other. He probably thinks its weird, and if you gave him unlimited power, he'd probably keep them out of the military and tolerate them, but give them no special rights. But I doubt he cares enough to spend time on the issue.
I was still examining military recruits when this first surfaced as an issue. There are people on active duty who cross dress off duty. Nobody cares. The staff, all of whom are former EM, were very concerned about having to examine and process these people who are "transitioning" under heavy drug treatment and who may or may not have had surgery. What do you do with a transgender"female" with a penis in a room full of girls who are in underwear?
This is a big deal for the military. The brass is not affected and is political. The enlisted will be very affected and the first applicants will be the militant activists.
Most likely, a staff lawyer wrote a brief for Trump which he was referencing when he said he read the "decision."
It's not fair to call that bullshit. I think your splitting hairs unfairly. Obama wouldn't have read a 172 page document either, nor should he, but he might still refer to reading the summary document from his lawyer as having read the decision.
TDS on display with the Hostess today.
THEOLDMAN
When I was detailed from a letter carrier position to an acting line supervisor in the USPS, EVERY management decision I made was met with filing of numerous grievances and EEO complaints. The former were 99% not supported by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the latter was pure harassment. I, a white male Episcopalian, allegedly discriminated against a white male Episcopalian letter carrier by not assigning him OT on the day in question. We paid for Union stewards to hear the grievances and EEO reps on both sides to try to resolve them. Guess what: after I secured a promotion to the actual position, grievances dropped to a minimum and EEOs disappeared. Like my GF likes to say, Howz bout dat? I can see the reluctance SOME might have to hire a person that might be difficult to fire due to POOR performance and NO other reason. As to it being illegal to discriminate against people that apply for jobs, it is simple to get around. In government and many major corporations, just be white and male. It used to be the GOAL of the USPS (Affirmative Action).
To a non-lawyer, I think "decision" could just mean the end result, the bottom line. If you're used to having the word as part of your work jargon, it may seem strange to hear the vernacular use of it but it's not as if he's suddenly trying to redefine "defund".
Biology and how someone self-identifies are not the same thing. One is objective and the other is not.
The supreme court baked a subjective self-identification into the law, which will cause many problems for women's sports, and the safety of women in spaces that used to be semi-private and exclusive to women.
The outcome will hopefully be that private spaces in public buildings be actually private. Toilet cubicles will have full walls and doors, like many do in Germany and other civilized countries. Sharing bathroom experiences with others is a strange part of our culture. For many it is "no big deal." For others, it is gross, immodest and an invasion of privacy.
Mike Petrik said...
While the holding is certainly not consistent with legislative intent, it is nonetheless a straightforward application of a text's plain meaning. If Congress passes a law that says X while intending to say Y, X is still the law. At least if due process means anything at all.
******************
When the statute in question was passed by Congress, homosexual acts were illegal in most of the United States. So how could Congress have intended to protect gay and trans people who engaged in illegal acts?
And since when is it the role of the Court to IGNORE legislative intent?
Althouse you go to (culture) war with the readership you have assembled; not the readership you might hope for.
And this decision shows us all the limits of the devil’s bargain I made in 2016. Voting reluctantly for Trump in the basis of prospective federal judicial selections.
Gorsuch wrote an opinion that Justice Kennedy might have written. So much for Trump’s nominees being so totally superior to Reagan/Bush nominees.
Althouse your gratuitous and spiteful comments is something that was to be expected from the banned commenters. It's not a good look. As for Trump reading the decision, he reads it the same I do in a case where I'm a litigant. I let the lawyer summarize the decision. Trump isn't a lawyer nor does he claim to be one. But he is quite capable of reading the summary prepared for him presumably by the White Counsel and or the DoJ. Unlike his predecessor, Trump actually adheres to the Constitution. And that guy was a lawyer. And so was his opponent in 2016 who nevertheless was not charged for various felonies due to the misconduct of other lawyers. His current opponent supposedly graduated law school but the ethics part escaped him entirely and that was before he was senile.
To be fair, I'm mostly a woman before 7 am, and then I eat breakfast, and I'm pretty much male, until about 12:30 pm when I start menstruating from my pee-hole from bleeding kidney stones, and after putting on my panty liners and become female again in scientifically measured brain waves. Then about 4 pm I go get drunk in the local bar and the bikers come in and people start pushing and shoving and kicking each others ass, and my panty liner is removed in the mens bathroom, while I pee standing up in a trough, and walk home for dinner, which this morphing wo-man tends to chore.
Then we go to bed and she reads a book, and I play on-line Canasta with people in Cambodia.
I'm not a man or a wo-man, nope, I claim both! Where's my welfare check and Supreme Court decision???
I, like Royal ass Inga, am excited to see Title IX torpedoed by biologically male athletes dominating formerly-female sports.
Female gymnastics will probably survive, which is nice. I guess.
Universities will now have to guarantee equal participation between sexes and also not deny biological men the right to participate as women. Tough needle to thread.
At most, he hopes to maintain the enthusiasm of the religious conservatives he needs to get reelected.
You assume he's playing to the usual suspects, perhaps not, Hispanics are a conservative, family oriented Christian group. In the past twenty years large numbers of Hispanics have converted from Catholicism to Evangelist/Fundamental denominations. Trumps poll numbers are rising in the Hispanic demographic, this will only help his outreach.
I hear "I read the opinion." as a "Royal I" where actions of one's staff accrue to oneself. I imagine he read a condensed version prepared for him. Someone is offering a 30 page condensation on their website.
Sex: male and female, is determined at conception and immutable. Sex-correlated gender (i.e. physical and mental attributes): masculine and feminine, respectively, is a phenotypic product.
Grenell, one of Trump's best appointments is openly gay. Trump has no problem with the issue.
Trans/homo, yes. Trump, and Grenell, too, discern a difference between normalization and tolerance. They have managed to mitigate progress through a relapse to a Pro-Choice religion.
So, that you can't discriminate because of sex
means
you can't discriminate because of sexual orientation
you can't discriminate because of sexual preference
you can't discriminate because of sex "assignment" or "reassignment"
there's another set of laws about discrimination because of race
will we soon say that
you can't discriminate because of racial orientation
you can't discriminate because of racial preference
you can't discriminate because of racial "assignment" or "reassignment"
if Not, Why NOT?
If i can declare, that i am a WOMAN, Why can't i declare, that i am an African American?
Upset with AA's coiffure footnote? I read he had transplants. Protect the transfollicled!
I would like Althouse’s opinion on how much this decision owes to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (was it a plurality written by O’Connor?)
And courts often say “if the legislature doesn’t like what we’ve done with the statute, they can change it.” That would have worked here no matter how the case came out. Just hard to do without two houses and the President agreeing (or veto-proof majorities (ha ha)).
Damn near every municipality, city, and state now has to change it's statutory language.
That's just the start. Every form, application, any document whatsoever that asks for identifying information has to immediately toss all their old forms in the garbage and print new ones.
All this happens at the drop of a hat because, once again, the Supreme Court changes social policy instead of going through the prescribed remedy in the Constitution.
I am personally looking forward to people losing their jobs for failure to use preferred personal pronouns on social media. You KNOW the progressive alphabet people WILL go there.
Insofar as the decision is grounded in the Court's role in interpreting Legislation, absent any conflict with the Constitution, seems to me that new and better written Legislation set the Court's decision aside.
Ia there any Federal Legislation which specifies and defines sexes, genders, races, ethnicities, and religions - and the objective tests used to determine the same?
Excellent.
Feelings now have legal standing.
I will immediately reapply for car insurance as a woman.
And health insurance.
And life insurance.
Thanks for the subsidies, biological women.
Damn. Winning gracefully is not a universal trait.
I suppose there's some profound inner conflict ongoing - the absurdity of the SC's justification for their recent judicial activism (which must irritate some basic beliefs about the sanctity of our Constitutional system) versus being down with the cause.
So we simply lash out rather than evaluate our own motivations. Any target will do. Trump's an easy one.
I said it before but big blue states already have this law. The sky has not fallen in california or new york. But now in red states the strategic litigation claiming exemptions for religious bigotry will heat up. Even though a few years ago poll showed 93 per cent in USA oppose discriminating against gays in employment.
Homosexuals being discriminated against on the basis of having "same sex attraction" falls under the heading of sex discrimination. It makes sense because part of "sex" is who you are attracted to. Transgenders are along for the ride, unless you consider transgender to be a new sexual category.
ubanbob said...
Althouse your gratuitous and spiteful comments is something that was to be expected from the banned commenters. It's not a good look. As for Trump reading the decision, he reads it the same I do in a case where I'm a litigant. I let the lawyer summarize the decision. Trump isn't a lawyer nor does he claim to be one.
Right on the nose. Good comment.
In order to demonstrate compliance with the new requirements forced upon employers by the Justices it will be necessary to identify the members of the workforce who are truly homosexual.
This can be a difficult task as there are frequently no clear-cut visual or documentary markers. I am working up a questionnaire with a point scoring system which I may try to market in the future -
1. Do you like gladiators?
2. How many cast members of Sex and the City can you name?
3. Will or Grace?
4. Who is your favorite "Friends" character?
5. Can you distinguish between chintz and brocade?
6. When you wear underwear is your preferred fabric cotton, silk or leather?
7. When did you last attend a Bette Midler performance?
8. When you see the Washington Monument do you think of George or your father?
There's more work to do but it holds promise.
I think I am rather pleased with the opinion but I call bullshit on Althouse. Austin Roth details exactly why above. The judgment is actually 37 pages and the court's own summary is 4 pages. Trump could easily have read either. Althouse citing the 172 page length looks like bad faith, since she knew about the dissents.
cubanbob said...
Althouse your gratuitous and spiteful comments is something that was to be expected from the banned commenters. It's not a good look. As for Trump reading the decision, he reads it the same I do in a case where I'm a litigant. I let the lawyer summarize the decision. Trump isn't a lawyer nor does he claim to be one. But he is quite capable of reading the summary prepared for him presumably by the White Counsel and or the DoJ. Unlike his predecessor, Trump actually adheres to the Constitution. And that guy was a lawyer. And so was his opponent in 2016 who nevertheless was not charged for various felonies due to the misconduct of other lawyers. His current opponent supposedly graduated law school but the ethics part escaped him entirely and that was before he was senile.
6/16/20, 11:55 AM
THIS!!!
@ wholelottasplainin' --
"When the statute in question was passed by Congress, homosexual acts were illegal in most of the United States. So how could Congress have intended to protect gay and trans people who engaged in illegal acts?
And since when is it the role of the Court to IGNORE legislative intent?"
Good jurisprudence eschews legislative intent, as both Bork and Scalia repeatedly reminded us and rightly so. Instead when interpreting text courts should seek to apply the plain meaning of the words that the legislature enacted. Gorsuch's opinion does just that. It seems to me the dissent is seeking to elevate legislative intent over the actual text, and that is not conservative jurisprudence.
Congress enacts laws with words. Even assuming the intention of a legislative body is ever a single unified thing that is knowable with confidence, it is those words that are the law, not subjective intent.
“I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that," Trump might have declared of Gorsuch.
We have all seen before how this game is played. And how the Court has now guaranteed that it will continue -- only more viciously as the sharks smell the blood in the water. "Ha, ha, ha"
We have all seen that Congress can enact a law, screaming in large, flashing neon letters, "THIS IS NOT A TAX," and the jesters that purport to call themselves justices will in an exercise of their raw power declare it to be a tax.
BLM has it right -- there the injustice IS systemic. The Supreme Court, authors of the dictate that black people are only a species of property with no rights, and that innocent living human beings are not really living nor human, and that three generations of idiots are enough -- THIS? is what we are supposed to respect and give fealty to??? THEY ARE A FRAUD - and have been for a long time.
Funny thing about that. The narrow definition of sex as biologically determined at birth is the actual real life biological definition of sex. Courts can't change that. IIRC there are some varieties of amphibians and other lower order creatures that can change sex. Humans cannot. Nor any other mammals.
cubanbob said...
Althouse your gratuitous and spiteful comments is something that was to be expected from the banned commenters. It's not a good look.
An excellent illustration of the evils of sexual perversion is how it brings out the worst in Althouse.
University of Alberta prof loses admin role over views on gender that made students feel 'unsafe'
her views on feminism were making students feel unsafe and there were concerns this was driving students away from choosing anthropology as a major. She doesn’t know exactly the nature of the complaints — or who made them — because they were made informally and anonymously, she said.
But I was progressive!
the Supreme Court changes social policy instead of going through the prescribed remedy in the Constitution
Changing social policy and gerrymandering scientific knowledge.
If i can declare, that i am a WOMAN, Why can't i declare, that i am an African American?
The "one-drop rule" when politically congruent applies. See "White Hispanic vs protestors." Disclosure: all warlock judgments are progressive and subject to change.
Chuck said...
Althouse you go to (culture) war with the readership you have assembled; not the readership you might hope for.
And this decision shows us all the limits of the devil’s bargain I made in 2016. Voting reluctantly for Trump in the basis of prospective federal judicial selections.
Gorsuch wrote an opinion that Justice Kennedy might have written. So much for Trump’s nominees being so totally superior to Reagan/Bush nominees.
6/16/20, 11:46 AM
Look who slipped through the cracks in the filter. I prefer that you be barred from replying, but if you can, do point to your contemporaneous objections to Gorsuch. Problem is that so many are weak sisters like you, that how can any be trusted?
You get very emphatic lecturing how neutral you are. Then you write
“ * His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair.”
See AA. You can write until the cows come home about the great comic chops of the nastiest talking national politician in memory, but make a passing remark about a personal grooming feature he himself has the good sense to lampoon and the Trump cultists turn on you at once.
It is a closer question than many of you are recognizing. Two ideas are important if you want to understand Gorsuch's textualism.
Intent. What matters is not intent but the meaning of the enacted text. If every representative and senator jointly intended as they cast their votes that the law making July National Day-Lily Month really meant that each congressperson is to receive $1,000,000 from the US Treasury, that would not make the law mean that.
The second idea involves finding the appropriate level of generality for what the text means. We do not limit what text means to set of all instances that the enactors had in mind at the time. The second amendment says "arms." Does that include a Glock 17? Sure. Carbon fiber guns? Sure.
I'm not saying that Gorsuch's argument is a slam dunk (or even that it clearly beats Alito's argument), but you all (mostly) are dismissing it without understanding how it works. Try steelmanning it.
that's not a recommendation,
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/scotuss-transgender-ruling-firebombs-the-constitution/
Ken B said...
You get very emphatic lecturing how neutral you are. Then you write
“ * His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair.”
****************
Accompanied by her twenty-year-old profile with blondified, moussed and spray-spritzed hair.
For every victory given to liberals, the angrier they get.
Figure it out.
Just pass another law. Ha, ha, ha.
Yes, we have seen many times how no law, no institution, no concept, no reality -- including the reality of the human person -- "no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court" (see O'Connor, J.).
The imperial judiciary lives indeed when, once again, it presumes to be the "supreme" and unquestionable entity to "call the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."
How could it be otherwise for the judicial dictatorship of relativism when it still embraces -- with the complicity of professors -- the notion which has been laughed at repeatedly, that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
jeremyabrams said...
Anyone who really cares about gay and transgender people would want their protections enshrined in legislation. What the Supreme Court giveth it can taketh away. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked an advance in Western Civilization in a way that a court decision extending the same rights never could have.
-------------
So the legal community does not see civil rights extending and follow from the Bill of Rights without any necessity for statutes?
The text of the Ninth Amendment is very short and states the following:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I see the statute The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as abridging freedom of association and contract
If I understand the scotus argument, a woman desiring a man is the same as a man desiring a man, and since it's the same thing, it's discrimination by the sex of the desirer.
But same thing can go anywhere in an argument - a woman desiring the opposite sex is not the same thing as a man desiring the same sex.
Same in some respects and different in some respects. You're free to feature whichever you want, and so it's no legal argument at all.
It would have to be the same in all respects to work as an argument, I'd say.
Browndog @ 1:13:
“Damn near every municipality, city, and state now has to change it's statutory language.
That's just the start. Every form, application, any document whatsoever that asks for identifying information has to immediately toss all their old forms in the garbage and print new ones.
All this happens at the drop of a hat because, once again, the Supreme Court changes social policy instead of going through the prescribed remedy in the Constitution.“
Word. Your attention to the practical effects of this self-indulgent trainwreck of a decision is to be applauded. It is too easy for us to natter on in a talking shop and give little or no thought to the actual burden IRL. Which burden, big surprise, falls on the chumps who had no quarrel with the handful of “victims” who pressed their case to the utmost because reasons.
Althouse: It's just a statute. Congress is free to change it. Let's see if they try. Ha ha.
This is deranged.
the great comic chops of the nastiest talking national politician in memory,
Biden may be senile but I don't think he is that bad. He did have a few things to say about Obama, and about Indians running 7-11 stores, but that was back when he was compus mentis
Wa State Blogger: We fight over whether the founders intended assault since they had no idea they existed. The conservatives would say that the understanding if the 2nd is that it meant all weapons even if they were not part of the knowledge of the writers. The same argument can be made for Title VII. They meant to squash hiring discrimination. They listed out the key elements, but just because they did not list out every one that exists today does not mean they should thus be excluded.
There were no homosexuals in 1964? Totally beyond their ken, eh? Bolt from the blue.
@AA:
Gorsuch didn't rewrite the statute. He looked at the language of the statute and refused to write an exception to it. If you think that's bullshit, fine, but it's no less bullshit than the Alito interpretation that you like or your purporting to like it on the basis of its more faithful understanding of text.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have read Volokh pretty regularly for a dozen years or so, which must count for something.
Gorsuch looked at the language and refused to write an exception to the language is disingenuous.
The clear intent of Title VII was to prohibit employment discrimination based upon plumbing. For example, when Title VII was passed, women were not allowed to be airline pilots (and a woman claiming to be a man wouldn't have been allowed, either).
It had nothing whatsoever to do with behavior, and everything to do with biology: being in possession of a lady garden would no longer be a barrier to employment opportunities. Had the legislation been written with "being in possession of a lady garden" instead of "sex" the legislative intent would have been just as fully achieved, and been immune to Gorsuch's revisionism.
Just like Obergefell and Roe v Wade, SCOTUS should have declared it had no standing and kicked it back to Congress so they could do their damn job.
And what about the knock-on effects? Back in the day, I was maybe 80th percentile in athletic skills. Good enough to be fairly adept, but not a first stringer.
But plenty good enough to, having decided I was a lesbian trapped in a man's body, to beat elite women athletes in any strength or speed sport.
Seems to me that is a real problem that immediately follows on the heels of a decision that has no limiting principles.
Wa St. Blogger I do think that it would have been better for Congress to do this, but the political reality is that there are too many on the right who want to stop people from flying their freak flag, thus this would not pass in the congress.
The fact that a course of action would not pass in the Congress is not an argument for doing it via the courts. It's an argument AGAINST it.
“Accompanied by her twenty-year-old profile with blondified, moussed and spray-spritzed hair.”
Do NOT dare mention Trump’s orange spray spritzed hair ever again!
By the way, have you noticed the rainbow pride crowd trying to co-opt the protests? Trying to push the Black cause to the back of the bus?
Is an employer failing to give birthing and/or abortion health benefits to a "transgender woman," precisely because "she" is a "transgender woman" a discriminatory act under this Supreme Court decision?
And -- are quotation marks an act of discrimination?
Is the term "transgender woman" -- with or without quotation marks -- itself discriminatory?
Appoint by Trump. Using this accomplishes the goal without having to pass new legislation. Winning. Although you seem as though this couldn't have been discussed prior??? Wow, beating 16 others and an uneven field will never be enough for some.
Appointed by Trump... Using interpretation vs trying to pass legislation, Bravo! So much for saying he was against gay and transgender. Winning
I've observed many times in this space: When it comes to anything related to LGTBQX, Althouse immediately loses 30 IQ points.
* His orangified, poofed up, spray-spritzed hair. Gratuitous and juvenile. Really ratcheting up the Cruel Neutrality Bullshit brand lately Ann.
There were no homosexuals in 1964? Totally beyond their ken, eh? Bolt from the blue.
Were there people identifying as transgender? Not really, but there were people identifying as transsexual, in the terminology of the time.
Christine Jorgensen had the chop in the 1950s, followed by the manufacture of a facsimile of a vagina. Celebrated case. No doubt well-known by Congress at the time of Title VII. Also Virginia Prince, Reed Erickson, Glen or Glenda. Cross-dressers too, Some Like it Hot. Yeah, the phenomenon was very well-known by the drafters of Title VII. If they had meant to include them in Title VII, they would have said so explicitly.
the rainbow pride crowd trying to co-opt the protests? Trying to push the Black cause to the back of the bus
The transgender rainbow (spectrum) excludes black, brown, and features the shredded remains of white. A weird symbol to associate with human lives.
President Trump will appoint at least two more SCOTUS justices. I wish that would mean the conservatives would then start to interpret statutes as they need to achieve the desired result. Simple, the Constitutution defines life as begining at conception, thus, life cannot be ended.
But alas, conservatives actually believe in self governance. I wish Republicans would employ democrat tactics on democrats. But democrats are corrupt, and Republicans aren't.
Some of y'all act like you ain't never had to deal with a woman getting emotional before. They can't help it. It's biological. It's in their jeans. It probably serves some sort of evolutionary survival need. Who knows?
Anyway, you just have to be tolerant and accepting and love them despite their flaws.
Besides, it usually gets better after a few days, so just abide, and go with the flow.
Madame La Professeur is showing her pro-Dem "neutrality." Vietnam generation liberalism, combined with societal engineering through social justice...Is law mutable? Is natural law changeable?
It's my habit to read a chapter from the Bible every morning. I once told a young person that I read the Bible every day. He replied that that's not possible because it's too long. He was of the age, middle school, at which people said things like that. Maybe he grew out of it.
"Justice" Neil Gorsuch is just another phony perv sell-out. He previously established a Constitutional Right for illegal aliens to invade and now he's legislating Trans Rights from the bench. What a f***ing liar.
Meanwhile, John Roberts won't allow any cases defending the Second Amendment. And he just ruled that Governors and mayors can close churches for as long as they feel like it, for months or even years, First Amendment be damned.
Of course, Roberts and Gorsuch sided with the Usual Communist Scumbags on the Court to do it. Don't be fooled--not all Communists have swarthy facial hair like Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Jumpin' John Roberts and the Law of Rules: When Democrat Dictators Tell Him When To Jump, He Asks "How Low?"
This Court is anti-gun, pro-Gay, pro-Trans, pro-abortion, pro-Affirmative Action, pro-Kelo, pro-open borders, pro-Obamacare, pro-Statist and pro-Deep State, judging by John Roberts’ secret Coup-plotting with the FISA Fraud.
This “conservative” Court is an enemy of liberty. And why shouldn’t it be? Why shouldn't it be just another Fake-ass Conservative, Inc.-grift in a town full of these plastic parasites. Why should this institution be any different than the rest of Sewer City?
Donald Trump is more conservative than all these useless frauds put together–and he’s a patriot, not a conservative.
Our Constitution is Hanging by a Thread. Of a a Thread. Of a Thread.
We let them get away with murdering Nino for this horsesh*t?
The issue is "Who Decides?"
It always is.
Inga said...Let’s all focus on big burly transvestites scaring little girls in bathrooms and on other non existent threats posed by LGTB people..
--
Inga's kids aren't in schools or the like, so she ain't worried there in Toe-sah.
Was there an ugly battle that resulted in the reordering from LGBT to LGTB?
https://https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lgtb/define.php?term=lgtb
LGTB at urban dictionary
LGTB stands for "Let's get this bread"
Good morning y'all, let's get this bread today. (LGTB)
-
Btw, the new constellation has way more letters: LGBTTTQQIAA
There may be a new one added tomorrow. Perhaps F for Furries and a perma-suffix of WTF.
"He's read the decision. Ha ha. Did anyone tell him it was 172 pages long before he concocted that lie? I assume it's a lie." I'm thinking "read the decision" might have a different meaning for most people from that of a (former) law professor. Don't know that the comment deserved to garner that snark?
"By the way, have you noticed the rainbow pride crowd trying to co-opt the protests?"
Nope, just welcomed for the most part.
Your concern trolling is noted.
So many of the comments on this thread are surprisingly ignorant, especially given this blog's unusually erudite visitors. This decision is not Lawrence, which was wrongly decided. Instead, this decision is perfectly logical.
Look, if an employer hired males who prefer or drink red wine but refused to hire females who prefer or drink red wine, we would all, I think, agree that the employer's practice constituted unlawful discrimination. Substitute "prefer or have 'sexual' relations with women" for "enjoyed red wine" and it really should be the same result.
This is indeed not what Congress intended, but it is what it did. Congress simply failed to foresee society's changing attitude toward homosexuality which eventually exposed Congress's shortcoming in draftsmanship.
Did Neil think about pleasing his late mother on this one? Or was Anne Burford actually more tough-minded than Neil? She wrote the book Are You Tough Enough? following her difficult time heading the EPA. Not sure if Neil can answer yes to that one.
There was a sort of a logical path to the conclusions they were hunting for, he and Roberts. But we can't overlook that these guys both have the look of teacher-pleasing weenies in school, mentor-pleasing weenies after school, and, guess what, now they are Establishment-pleasing weenies. As creatures of their times, unfortunately, they can only go so far in their rulings.
Mike P,
Kinda leaving out the more problematic part of the ruling.
Perhaps not so erudite yourself.
Wa St Blogger,
"The fact of discrimination in hiring is abhorrent. A person's attributes that are not performance related should not be a basis to deny them employment."
I couldn't disagree more. What's truly abhorrent is the principle that the government gets to second-guess every decision you make; that by going into business, or even doing something as personal a hiring a nanny to live and work in your own home with your own children, makes you effectively a branch of the government and subject to every whim of 50%+1 of the voters plus the dictates of unelected bureaucrats.
"We fight over whether the founders intended assault since they had no idea they existed."
The only ones fighting against that notion are the ones against it, since anyone who can and does read, can read what those who voted for it thought they were getting: in the words of Tench Coxe (delegate from Pennsylvania), " Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…"
buwaya,
"He switched from Catholic to COE/Episcopal.
This is always a very bad sign."
For sure. The good folks are the ones switching from Roman Catholic to one of the Eastern groups (e.g. Greek Melkite) because they think the Roman church is too compromised at the moment.
Sebastian,
"Reaching a result so clear and obvious, in spite of the fact that it would not have occurred to anyone in 1964, that for more than half a century Congress itself could not bring itself to state what was clear and obvious."
Indeed.
My response/addition to what you say here was going to be my amazement at the Court pissing away what little bit of legitimacy they have left, but on further thought it occurs to me that just as likely they are fully aware they have none--that this is simply about power and all the language is merely to give window dressing to it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा