SCOTUS Rules in Favor of LGBT Rights in Workplace Discrimination Case

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

38 Responses

  1. Avatar Doctor Jay says:

    I feel quite confident that Kennedy would have joined the majority on this one, while his replacement did not. I wonder if he thought that sort of thing would happen.Report

    • Kavanaugh wrote his own dissent so that he could say that he personally prefers the majority’s opinion about what Title VII ought to say, just can’t agree that when Congress wrote “sex” in the 1960s they meant to include LGBTQ. Weasel. Alito and Thomas just stopped at “sex doesn’t mean all those other things.”Report

      • Avatar Doctor Jay in reply to Michael Cain says:

        So, why not vote for it? Dude’s trying to have it both ways. Which is pretty much why he makes a poor judge. He’s always worried about who to please.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Doctor Jay says:

          Because they aren’t there to rule on What Would Be Nice, they’re there to rule on what the law says, and Kavanaugh says–which I think isn’t wrong?–that you can’t just take words out of their historical context and insist that they mean something different because the result is something we like.

          Like, when someone says “oh, the Second Amendment says ‘a well-regulated MILITIA’, but you have to understand the historical definition of ‘militia’ which refers to an organised body of armed men operating with government authorisation and under government control, they didn’t mean just a bunch of dudes with their own guns”, they’re making the same argument Kavanaugh does here.Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

            a key difference here is that the definition of a well regulated militia hasn’t really changed since it was codified in the Constitution. The definition of “sex” has changed as science has examined the genetics and physiology of the idea. Congress at the time of the writing of the Act had no idea what the biology would reveal.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

              While it does say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, the right doesn’t *APPLY* to women or minorities. It comes out and says “well-regulated militia”. That’s the only people the right applies to.

              Which definition, as you know, hasn’t really changed since it was codified.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

              i think maybe you want to rethink this line of argument, because if you want to argue that “sex” as a term no longer has a meaningful definition that’s great but it also implies that gender presentation is a matter of fashion choice and firing someone over theirs is no more significant than firing them for wearing an Ed Hardy T-shirt instead of following a dress codeReport

            • Avatar Em Carpenter in reply to Philip H says:

              It’s worth noting that Gorsuch agrees for the purposes of the opinion that sex means what it mean then: biological distinctions between male and female.
              The notion that Gorsuch is arguing that the definition of “sex” as used in the statute has changed or must be updated for modern times is incorrect. Rather, he says the result reached when applying the statute to the facts of this case may have been one that was not intended back then but that is not a deciding concern when interpreting the text.
              I did a full write-up on the decision in Writs today, if you are interested.Report

  2. Gorsuch with the opinion. Wonder how Trump’s evangelical base will respond to that.Report

  3. Avatar Michael Cain says:

    The orders list was at least as interesting as this. The Court denied cert for all of the qualified immunity and 2nd Amendment cases in the queue.Report

  4. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Roberts and to a lesser extent Gorsuch care deeply about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and want the public to have faith in the opinions of the Supreme Court. This means that every now and then, they will back down from a decision that would be hugely unpopular and create a view that the Supreme Court is merely another political actor. Of course, there are other times when they will be perfectly fine in making obviously partisan decisions.Report

  5. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Kavanaugh’s dissent ends on a surprisingly gracious note where he states that regardless of his decision, LGBT Americans won a great victory this day.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *