re: SCOTUS Reasoning

quote:

---

I do however disagree that the Supreme Court made law. It is their job to interpret law...

---

I understand what their role is. The issue I have is that I don't believe this ruling was simply an interpretation. When, by their ruling, the justices have added the language of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into the law, they have created legislation. You can tell this has happened because the very thing they accomplished has been under debate by Congress (where the fight is supposed to live) for years. Getting the law changed to specifically protect orientation and identity has been going for a while now and that fight stopped immediately when the SCOTUS issued their ruling. That's not an interpretation: that's a flat-out alteration of the law based on a redefinition of the term "sex".

You can tell that this "interpretation" was a change to the law when employers are forced to update their policies to reflect this new language even though that language isn't in the applicable law.

quote:

---

It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.

---

Not at all. They are supposed to rule according to the law. If the law is silent, they are to be silent, as well. They are not supposed to make up for deficiencies within the law by filling the gaps with their rulings.

The right decision would have been to say that the law specifically mentions that discrimination by sex is called out--which was understood as being biological and anatomic differences between males and females--and that sex is fundamentally different from sexual orientation and gender identity, and that the onus is on law makers in Congress to update the existing laws to reflect the will of the people. That's how our government is supposed to work.

quote:

---

I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?

---

It's the purview of the courts to say that the law is clear in its intent and that there is no case to sue if there is no protection for a particular group or characteristic left out. The responsibility would be on Congress, then, to update the laws accordingly.