- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted on 6/16/20 at 6:56 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 6:56 am
I know people are unhappy about the result of the SCOTUS decision yesterday, but I have not seen a discussion on the reasoning of the decision. Instead, the discussion has been on the outcome itself and what it means for the future which is fair.
Title VII clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex among other things. In this case, Gorsuch wrote if you have two employees, male and female, who are identical in every way and they both date a man, then it is not allowed to fire the man for that. The reasoning is you have no problem with the woman doing the same thing so you are taking the employee’s sex into account which is not allowed.
I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is.
Thoughts?
Title VII clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex among other things. In this case, Gorsuch wrote if you have two employees, male and female, who are identical in every way and they both date a man, then it is not allowed to fire the man for that. The reasoning is you have no problem with the woman doing the same thing so you are taking the employee’s sex into account which is not allowed.
I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is.
Thoughts?
23
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:00 am to LSU2ALA
I don’t think it’s textual
The statue says you can’t discriminate based on sex. Gorsuch rewrites that to say you can’t do on basis of sexuality.
The statue says you can’t discriminate based on sex. Gorsuch rewrites that to say you can’t do on basis of sexuality.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:00 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
Thoughts?
the law was never intended to extend to secondary variables like that. it's about the primary variable (biological sex of the employee)
this is a case of decades of courts trying to be "nice guys" and expanding tests used to interpret laws to the point of literal absurdity
we have a court saying their tests are so important that they have to submit to these tests (created out of thin air and in no way directly related to the legislation at hand) and change the language of the actual words of the law
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:01 am to LSU2ALA
It does make sense yes.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:03 am to CauleyHog
quote:
It does make sense yes.
it only makes sense if the law was written to prohibit discrimination based on the sex of the partner of the employee
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:03 am to Magician2
Honestly there’s states that already had this policy that you cannot fire exclusively on sexual orientation. And I think we would all agree that’s discrimination.
The issue however is more or less what’s the next point on the escalation mountain. Like I want to see whether this will apply to women’s sport for example. You also have an issue of rewriting laws from the bench even though that is not a judges job.
The issue however is more or less what’s the next point on the escalation mountain. Like I want to see whether this will apply to women’s sport for example. You also have an issue of rewriting laws from the bench even though that is not a judges job.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:04 am to Mister Flawless
quote:
You also have an issue of rewriting laws from the bench even though that is not a judges job.
Roberts disagrees
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:05 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is.
It is a bastardization of language.
It's taking "for the loss of a nail" to its extreme in order to achieve a legislative result that THE LEGISLATURE did not intend in 1964, and has not "corrected" since.
While not controlling, the "failure" of the legislature to act on a specific issue can be considered as the legislature's intent (both as an acknowledgment of what isn't in a law/what a law does NOT cover, and that the legislature wishes to maintain the status quo by not "fixing" it).
Plain and simple, this was linguistic gymnastics to achieve a policy result - just like Roberts did in Sebelius in 2012.
Alito's dissent is a perfect and complete evisceration of the Court's "reasoning"
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:05 am to Magician2
quote:
I don’t think it’s textual
The statue says you can’t discriminate based on sex. Gorsuch rewrites that to say you can’t do on basis of sexuality.
Right.
Sexuality is not sex.
Thinking you can choose your sex is not sex either.
Both are completely different things than what the law says.
They made law.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:05 am to LSU2ALA
Discrimination shouldn't be a part of this country whatsoever.
Yea, it's kinda a reach, but just bc a dude smokes pole or a chick munches carpet they shouldn't have employer consequences
Yea, it's kinda a reach, but just bc a dude smokes pole or a chick munches carpet they shouldn't have employer consequences
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:07 am to Mister Flawless
quote:
And I think we would all agree that’s discrimination.
it's clearly discrimination but the proper avenue is for Congress to address this issue
this is a clear case of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. even worse, it's a massive expansion of state power over individuals and that should be held to a very high standard
i feel we're a generation or 2 away from courts saying that legislatures can't rescind well-established laws b/c of the disruption in society or negative effects it would have
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:07 am to musick
quote:
Discrimination shouldn't be a part of this country whatsoever.
Yea, it's kinda a reach, but just bc a dude smokes pole or a chick munches carpet they shouldn't have employer consequences
If that’s what we as a nation want to do, we have a legislative body to address it.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:09 am to udtiger
quote:
this was linguistic gymnastics to achieve a policy result - just like Roberts did in Sebelius in 2012.
if you want to see just how much can change in a man, look at Roberts' closing statements in Obergefell and compare them to his decision yesterday
quote:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:09 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is. Thoughts?
Read Alito's dissent. It starts on page 38 of the PDF.
He explains why the majority opinion is so very wrong in gory detail. And most especially why it isn't a textulist decision, but simply legislating from the bench.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the law was never intended to extend to secondary variables like that. it's about the primary variable (biological sex of the employee)
But that is the entire point of textualism. You don’t look at what people intended. You look at what the words say. I agree the Congress never intended that but that is the logical outcome of what those words say. I don’t see any other logical way to read it.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:10 am to musick
quote:
just bc a dude smokes pole or a chick munches carpet they shouldn't have employer consequences
What if the employer is a church?
What if the employer is a daycare operator in a very conservative town/city?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:10 am to musick
quote:
Discrimination shouldn't be a part of this country whatsoever.
i don't think you've unpacked this statement
hell, the basis of our government is democracy, which is a highly discriminatory system. there are few systems more binary and exclusive than democracy
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:11 am to LSU2ALA
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 12:43 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:11 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is.
This was discussed in at least 2 strings and at least 4 different times yesterday.
Alito completely f*cking destroyed this attempted hypothetical in his dissent. And, Gorsuch clearly had absolutely no f*cking rebuttal.
Either read the strings from yesterday or Alito's dissent and you will feel like a total f*cking fool for falling for such illogical bullsh!t.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:12 am to LSU2ALA
There are 2 sexes, that’s it!
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News