Running SCOTUS thread

I think he’s been aware of that for quite some time. He has long sought to avoid 5-4 decisions when possible, for instance in this case where a Gorsuch splits.

 

The take on Roberts' flip on Obamacare was that he really feared the Court would be seen as legislating from the bench. Though Citizens United opened such a huge can of worms.

 

I am grateful that most Justices recognize that they are entrusted with a most sacred duty and act accordingly with respect to the Court, UNLIKE the clowns in the current administration who sell their soul for a quick $1M office and jet service.

 

I'm surprised Kavanaugh didn't join in the affirmative, given his ties to Kennedy (which Gorsuch also had). Just so I understand it clearly - was the dissent arguing that petitioners need to prove discrimination on a case by case basis and the majority ruling states that judges should now include sexual identity among the things companies can't discriminate on - joining race, gender, religion etc?

 

How does this affect the prejudiced EO from Friday?

If you can't discriminate based on sex for work and a TG woman was a party to that case, it would seem the EO is moot at this point.

 

I took the dissent to be that because the law doesn't specifically say sexual orientation, it's a legislative question and not a judicial one.

 

I imagine it's now unenforceable. What I think will happen is despite the order, Trump officials will try to adhere to the EO and will get sued. From there the order will be struck down based on this precedence. Under normal circumstances, the president would avoid such a black eye and just put out a memo saying the EO is in place, but don't enforce it. Trump will undoubtedly double down and force the issue.

 

That order was about healthcare. Today's ruling is based on Title VII, which deals exclusively with employment discrimination.
In spirit, you'd like to think today's SCOTUS action nullifies the Trumpist bigotry in Friday's order because both are about whether discrimination against transgender people constitutes sex discrimination. But I'm going to guess that nothing's automatic because nothing seems easy when we're talking about Obamacare, which was the target of the executive order.

 

So the dissent is:
We can't discriminate against a woman, because that is her sex.
But if she's gay, we can because being gay is not ok.

 

The majority held that for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination because of an individual's “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” the term “sex” includes an individual‘ s sexual orientation or identification.

The dissenters argue that the term sex, as that word was used when the statute was enacted, refers to “status as either male or female [as] determined by reproductive biology” and any expansion of the law’s protections today can only be accomplished legislatively.

 

Boy that Gorsuch pick isn't really working out how they thought it would.

Of course considering how this administration fucks everything up, it shouldn't be a surprise they couldn't even do that "right"

 

The way I understand it (via MSNBC)
In 1964, when the law was written, it wasn’t written for transgender and gay people in mind.
It was about sex
Ruling says it applies to sex, gender and sexual orientation and just because it wasn’t an issue in 1964 that doesn’t matter.