- 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
re: Supreme Court - "Sex discrimination" includes gay and transgender discrimination
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:54 am to mindbreaker
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:54 am to mindbreaker
quote:
It's always comical the same people that point this out are the same ones that are Rah Rah constitution is great. Until the part i don't like goes against me.
You do realize it’s explicitly talked about in the constitution and Federalist papers that the court is not a legislator, right? Have you heard of the Federalist Papers?
0
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:55 am to OMLandshark
quote:
You explicitly hire people for their point of view. That by definition can’t be a protected class. You’re an idiot.
No, you hire them to do a job. That's the whole idea behind protected classes; if they can do the job you can't fire them just because they look like RuPaul or believe in a different god than you. Political views don't have anything to do with running a forklift or answering a phone.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:56 am to Flats
That’s because there are two kinds of judges: formalists and equitists. In reality, all judges are a share of each. Formalists care only about process while equitists care only about results.
Formalists care what the letter of the law says, that whatever outcome is literal is just. They care about ensuring that outcomes are predictable by following a defined process in the law to arrive at an outcome. A subset of formalists are textualists, who are all about following laws to their most literal meaning. A subset of textualists are originalists, who believe that it’s not just important to follow the literal letter of the law, but because words often change their meanings over time, it is important to use the literal meaning of the word as it was understood by the people who drafted the law. In Louisiana, that’s easy because we have official comments in our civil code written by drafters to tell you exactly what they intend it to mean, but in Congress, the sausage-making process is so convoluted that it’s near impossible to pin down their meaning or even identity who the original drafter was! Thus, one can still identify multiple possible meanings for the same set of words. In the end, justices often pick from the slew of examples of “legislative intent” that creates a formula for future cases that is easiest to follow and predict. They want to ensure that if the current formula doesn’t answer the question, that the formula going forward won’t leave any more questions.
Equitists only care about what outcome is the most just. They are trying to find the means to justify their end rather than follow the set process and hope it arrives at the right place. They see the law as a vehicle for justice, so when the law is an impediment to that end based on some debatable language, they will interpret that language however necessary to arrive at the outcome they want.
Formalists care what the letter of the law says, that whatever outcome is literal is just. They care about ensuring that outcomes are predictable by following a defined process in the law to arrive at an outcome. A subset of formalists are textualists, who are all about following laws to their most literal meaning. A subset of textualists are originalists, who believe that it’s not just important to follow the literal letter of the law, but because words often change their meanings over time, it is important to use the literal meaning of the word as it was understood by the people who drafted the law. In Louisiana, that’s easy because we have official comments in our civil code written by drafters to tell you exactly what they intend it to mean, but in Congress, the sausage-making process is so convoluted that it’s near impossible to pin down their meaning or even identity who the original drafter was! Thus, one can still identify multiple possible meanings for the same set of words. In the end, justices often pick from the slew of examples of “legislative intent” that creates a formula for future cases that is easiest to follow and predict. They want to ensure that if the current formula doesn’t answer the question, that the formula going forward won’t leave any more questions.
Equitists only care about what outcome is the most just. They are trying to find the means to justify their end rather than follow the set process and hope it arrives at the right place. They see the law as a vehicle for justice, so when the law is an impediment to that end based on some debatable language, they will interpret that language however necessary to arrive at the outcome they want.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:56 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
That the court can just add new protected classes as they desire regardless of the law?
That's exactly what he's arguing, but only if he agrees with the protected class. And if you don't agree you're an idiot.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:59 am to OMLandshark
quote:You miss the point
Agreed, but so long as it exists, I don’t see the real argument (save for pedophilia when it comes to child focused industries) that sexuality wouldn’t be a protected class.
Why shouldn't basically EVERYTHING be a protected class? Ugly, Short, Tall, Skinny, Fat, etc etc etc?
The acceptance of the concept of protected classes is self defeating. It is open discrimination if EVERYTHING isn't protected AND, if everything is protected, there's no need for protected classes.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:59 am to Flats
quote:
No, you hire them to do a job.
Which has to do with a point of view if you’re in any creative field. Should the GOP be forced to hire an Antifa mobster who you think might directly sabotage your business? No, point of view can’t be a protected class sheerly by definition.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:01 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
man then i have a something to tell you about the second amendment
You going to do the musket thing?
If so, let's keep going with the 1A and 'the press'. Paper and ink only, no TV, radio or social media.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:03 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Should the GOP be forced to hire an Antifa mobster who you think might directly sabotage your business? No, point of view can’t be a protected class sheerly by definition.
Lol. You’re pretty dumb.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:04 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Which has to do with a point of view if you’re in any creative field. Should the GOP be forced to hire an Antifa mobster who you think might directly sabotage your business? No, point of view can’t be a protected class sheerly by definition.
So? There are plenty of protections that don't apply in every situation; the NBA isn't forced to hire people in wheelchairs to play basketball. Why is a religious point of view protected but a political point of view isn't? That's a helluva lot more of a "natural extension" than protecting a guy who wants to dress in drag because he's mentally ill.
You're the one who said SCOTUS can and should just add whatever the hell they want to the protected list, not me.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:09 pm to Flats
quote:
So?
That defeats the purpose of hiring And interviewing. You might as well never meet the person you hire, put all the qualifying resumes in a bingo cage, pick the first one to slide out, and just hope for the best.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:12 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:
Do you believe the mentally ill don't have civil rights?
They absolutely do, but to tell them they don’t need psychiatric help and that nothing is wrong with them because “society” is to blame is dangerous and doesn’t do anything to get them the help they need.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:13 pm to FalseProphet
I really don't have a problem with the opinion in principle but it should not be construed to legitimize gay and transgender as sexes; they aren't. There are 2 biological sexes. They should just call it discrimination and people are just people. Identity politics is the root of what's wrong with our nation and we have liberal progressives to thank for it because they use it to divide an conquer by buying votes. They know that most reasonable people will not agree with their ultra liberal agenda so the cobble together every minority sect in order to create a majority.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:14 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
OMLandshark
You've clearly maxed out.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:16 pm to Flats
quote:
the NBA isn't forced to hire people in wheelchairs to play basketball.
This is a terrible analogy. The NBA doesn't exclude people in wheelchairs. They exclude people who aren't as good at basketball as others.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:18 pm to MMauler
it doesn't surprise me that gorsuch voted with the liberals. very sad. yet again, taking on the legislative role.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:20 pm to lsufball19
quote:
This is a terrible analogy. The NBA doesn't exclude people in wheelchairs. They exclude people who aren't as good at basketball as others.
The point and your head were in two different places.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:22 pm to Flats
quote:
The point and your head were in two different places.
the point was ignorant
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The whole point is that the judiciary is supposed to interpret law according to the Constitution, not write new laws. It's the job of elected legislators to make the laws.
Well according to them this was always the law.
That’s how judicial interpretation works.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:25 pm to FalseProphet
There is only one explanation for gorsuch here.........Epstein is still alive.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 12:27 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Well according to them this was always the law.
And according to normal people, that’s hilarious.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News