Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Big Supreme Court Cases This Term

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Big Supreme Court Cases This Term

    I'm not sure why number 2 isn't a slam dunk since federal law says nothing about orientation, just biological sex.

    1.Will the right to an abortion survive this term?

    The Court will hear June Medical Services v. Gee, a case involving a Louisiana anti-abortion law that is virtually identical to one the Supreme Court struck down in its 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

    2. By next June, the Supreme Court also plans to decide whether federal law allows workers to be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    3. How much will the Court’s new majority expand the Second Amendment?

    New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, which the Court is expected to hear in December. New York State Rifle is the first major Second Amendment case to receive a full hearing from the justices in nearly a decade — and it is the first such case since Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh — so it offers the Supreme Court a vehicle to significantly expand the scope of that amendment if it has the votes to do so.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/4/208692...gbtq-obamacare
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I'm not sure why number 2 isn't a slam dunk since federal law says nothing about orientation, just biological sex.
    The primary argument is that if you would fire a male employee for being in a relationship with a man (homosexual), but would not fire a female employee for being in a relationship with a man (heterosexual), that is therefore discriminating based on sex because the firing is dependent on the sex of the individual. If they were of the opposite sex, the firing would not have happened; ergo, discrimination based on sex.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      The primary argument is that if you would fire a male employee for being in a relationship with a man (homosexual), but would not fire a female employee for being in a relationship with a man (heterosexual), that is therefore discriminating based on sex because the firing is dependent on the sex of the individual. If they were of the opposite sex, the firing would not have happened; ergo, discrimination based on sex.
      A stretch, the law was intended to apply to ones biological sex. Not being discriminated because you were female or male. Who you had sex with, or not, never entered in.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Clarence Thomas is absent due to illness for the present term, which may complicate things.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          He missed the first day of oral arguments but is expected to participate when he returns this term.

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Clarence Thomas is absent due to illness for the present term, which may complicate things.
            Absent for the term or just a few days?

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              A stretch, the law was intended to apply to ones biological sex. Not being discriminated because you were female or male. Who you had sex with, or not, never entered in.
              Back in my college days when I took several law classes just because, one of the professors had a hard time getting several of those in the class to understand that just because you may think it is wrong to discriminate against a group does not make it illegal unless they are explicitly listed as being protected by law. In fact, in the final there were two questions dealing with that in the multiple guess section. One listed various groups and you had to pick the one expressly mentioned as not being able to discriminate against whereas the other listed various groups and you had to pick the one that wasn't expressly protected from being discriminate against.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Back in my college days when I took several law classes just because, one of the professors had a hard time getting several of those in the class to understand that just because you may think it is wrong to discriminate against a group does not make it illegal unless they are explicitly listed as being protected by law. In fact, in the final there were two questions dealing with that in the multiple guess section. One listed various groups and you had to pick the one expressly mentioned as not being able to discriminate against whereas the other listed various groups and you had to pick the one that wasn't expressly protected from being discriminate against.
                Exactly, if they want federal protections for orientation (which most states have I believe) let them follow the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Exactly, if they want federal protections for orientation (which most states have I believe) let them follow the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.
                  As we see with their treatment of the Constitution many on the left reject that process preferring to simply to twist what is explicitly written to mean whatever they want at any given moment rather than going through that yucky, boring process of amending it.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    As we see with their treatment of the Constitution many on the left reject that process preferring to simply to twist what is explicitly written to mean whatever they want at any given moment rather than going through that yucky, boring process of amending it.
                    Of course, they hate the Constitution, so they go around it. But they wouldn't even have to amend it, just pass a law through the congress and get a President to sign it, like the Civil Rights act of 64.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      He missed the first day of oral arguments but is expected to participate when he returns this term.
                      Can he still write an opinion even if he doesn't hear the oral arguments?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Can he still write an opinion even if he doesn't hear the oral arguments?
                        Yes - oral arguments give the Justices a chance to question the attorneys about the case - Justice Thomas is famous for rarely asking any.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          A stretch, the law was intended to apply to ones biological sex. Not being discriminated because you were female or male. Who you had sex with, or not, never entered in.
                          But that's exactly the argument, that they are being discriminated against because they were female or male. The law prohibits discrimination based on sex, so your employer is not allowed to fire you in a situation where, if your sex was the opposite, they would not fire you. In these cases, if the employee's sex was flipped (thereby making it a woman who went out with men rather than a man who went out with men), the employer would have had no problem.

                          This isn't without precedent. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins took a case where a female employee alleged they were passed over for promotions because they didn't act how their employer thought a female should act, but that they would have had no problem with a male doing the same way--in other words, if you were to simply flip their gender over, a different outcome would occur and violates the law. Even the dissent (Kennedy/Rehnquist/Scalia) in that case didn't seem to take an issue with the idea that this was a violation of the law, the contention was about what had to actually be proven, with concerns that do not seem to apply in this case.

                          I thought it was pretty silly to claim the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on orientation before, but in the last day or two I think there actually is a fairly reasonable textualist case that firing someone for being a homosexual is a violation of the law. Which explains why Gorsuch, probably the staunchest textualist on the court, appeared very receptive to the plaintiff in the oral argument.

                          (Note everything I just wrote applies to the homosexual discrimination case, not the transgender discrimination case, which I think brings up considerations not present in the homosexual case)

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Can he still write an opinion even if he doesn't hear the oral arguments?
                          Doesn't matter, because a justice can hear the oral arguments because they're all recorded (both in audio and in transcript format). It's what Ginsburg did last term when she was absent. In fact, you don't have to be a justice to do so... you can check them out right now on the Supreme Court's website.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Absent for the term or just a few days?
                            At present still absent without a date to return.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's been three days - a head cold can last longer than that.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X