re: SCOTUS Reasoning

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't really think it is textual, though. At least not if you are looking at it from the originalist/strict constructionist point of view that Justice Gorsuch is supposed to hold. A strict constructionist, say someone like Justice Scalia, would argue that the task of providing a more broader definition for who Title VII applies to should go to Congress. It's Congress' job to make changes to it. Until then, Title VII should be interpreted for exactly what it says.

I understand the argument Gorsuch makes, but it draws lines that we don't know Congress intended to draw themselves when they made the law.

quote:

---

Then why did the people who wrote the law not enforce it the way you think it reads?

---

Because they didn’t understand it that way doesn’t change the fact it says what it says.

quote:

---

Because they didn’t understand it that way

---

Go on...

quote:

---

doesn’t change the fact it says what it says.

---

Oh. Never mind.

quote:

---

How do you know they are the same without establishing what the individual sexes are?

---

How do I know a two 2 shapes with 4 equidistant sides and 90 degree angles are the same without knowing they are squares?

Regardless, knowing the sex isn’t a problem, it’s applying different standards to each sex that is the problem.

Requiring your employees engage in only heterosexual activity is treating people of each sex exactly the same. It’s not Discriminatory oN the basis of sex. Because the homogenous nature of the sexual relationship is the driver of the policy. The definition is homosexuality isn’t it?

Not dudes-with-dudes-uality

quote:

---

Alito completely f*cking destroyed this attempted hypothetical in his dissent.

---

No he didn't He just said stuff you agree with and fits your political leaning.

It's the same fallacy as Tucker Carlson "destroyed" hannity "destroyed". anytime I hear that I know some (insert figure that agrees with person) said some stuff that person likes and they got a political boner over it.

It boils down to different interpretations of the law as written. Just so happens the interpretation you like lost.

That's how the supreme court works. Been like that forever. Sorry you hate the constitution when it doesn't benefit you.

Great post.


I lied. It wasn’t.

quote:

---

No he didn't He just said stuff you agree with and fits your political leaning.

It's the same fallacy as Tucker Carlson "destroyed" hannity "destroyed". anytime I hear that I know some (insert figure that agrees with person) said some stuff that person likes and they got a political boner over it.

It boils down to different interpretations of the law as written. Just so happens the interpretation you like lost.

That's how the supreme court works. Been like that forever. Sorry you hate the constitution when it doesn't benefit you.

---

fricking relativism sucks. Such a bankrupt ideology.

quote:

---

Yes, the One Court is in the Constitution but the issue before it was not a constitutional one.

---

I was referring to the court make up, power structure, and voting procedures. There is a lot of shite that goes before the supreme court not specifically in the constitution.

quote:

---

I was referring to the court make up, power structure, and voting procedures. There is a lot of shite that goes before the supreme court not specifically in the constitution.

---

Oh agree there, the process is not in the Constitution but the process to come up with the process is.

This is a very poor decision, whether someone like the conclusion or not because it simply doesn't say what it says.

I read this to mean that people can't be discriminated by anything to do with race, sex, etc.

So, if an employee that likes to have sex with dogs... well, you can't rid of them that involves sex. If an employee is a member of Black Power, sorry, that has to do with race. If an employee hates women, sorry, that has to do with sex again.