1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Oh, let’s start it with a big one.

    Because this just happened.

    And Bostock happened this way:

  2. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Couldn’t even pull up the opinion because the site seemed to have crashed/slowed to a crawl.
  3. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

  4. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Yeah, it cratered and you couldn’t get more than the first page when you could even get the site to load.
  5. Amy

    Amy Well-Known Member

    Gorsuch and Roberts joined the court’s liberals:

    “Nor is it a defense to insist that intentional discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status is not intentional discrimination based on sex. An employer who discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees necessarily and intentionally applies sex-based rules.“


    “ I t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

    Therefore, discrimination against an employee because the person is gay or transgender is discrimination because of sex as that phrase is used in Title VII, even if the terms gay or transgender are not included in the law.

    The Court was not swayed by slippery slope arguments or potential violations of 1st A/statutory religious protections because those cases were not before it.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
  6. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    This is a very weird dystopian future.

  7. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    If you voted for Trump for his Supreme Court nominees ...
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  8. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    So much for that post-November lawsuit and a SCOTUS backstop. Start packing your bags, Twitchy.
    qtlaw likes this.
  9. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    No kidding. My faith in the court, for now, is renewed.

    And the argument to justify the protections is brilliant: You can't discriminate based on orientation or gender identity without first looking at the person's sex.
  10. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    It would certainly appear that Roberts is reading the tea-leaves.
  11. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    In America, the Supreme Court is an important part of

  12. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    I wonder if Roberts has finally opened his eyes to the fact that history remembers "the (insert name of Chief Justice) Court" and his name is forever attached to what the current SCOTUS does.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page