5 ms·

> Titles like these make people think that the Supreme Court is “endorsing” or “rejecting” gay and transgender worker protections. As one of the dissents point

by jawns 6y ago

> Titles like these make people think that the Supreme Court is “endorsing” or “rejecting” gay and transgender worker protections. As one of the dissents pointed out, when the liberal wing of the Supreme Court just happens (time and again) to interpret a statute in a way that advances liberal ideological objectives, and the conservative wing just happens (time and again) to interpret a statute in a way that advances conservative ideological objectives, it is not unreasonable for the general public to assume that the Court is indeed endorsing or rejecting based on ideology, rather than interpreting the law. Here's an interesting analysis of how and when ideology comes into play: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/supreme-court-justices-become-less-impartial-and-more-ideological-when-casting-the-swing-vote https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/supreme-cou...

sterlind 6y ago
Ah, but Gorsuch is not liberal - at least, he was installed by the Republicans, and looked up to Scalia a lot, and was proposed by the Federalist Society. That's what makes this decision such a welcome surprise to me. Maybe textualism isn't a lie.
- jawns 6y ago
  That's quite true, although not totally invalidating my point, because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they apply to the Supreme Court tend to be too one-dimensional. Gorsuch and Roberts are definitely conservatives in some respects, but when it comes to social issues, they're more moderate/libertarian, in the vein of Anthony Kennedy. In fact, if you look at all of Roberts' opinions on social issues, outside of maybe abortion stuff, it's a little surprising that Roberts did not join in with Obergefell. Given that he _did_ dissent from Obergefell, it's also a little surprising he didn't dissent in Bostock. His rationale in Obergefell was that regardless of what he would like the law to say, he did not find that it said what the majority wanted it to say. That's essentially what Kavanaugh said in his dissent today. And to the extent that both cases could be characterized as determining that a right has been hidden in plain sight this whole time, I'm not really sure why Roberts went one way with Obergefell and the other way with Bostock.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > when it comes to social issues In a society, those are the only issues that actually matter.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > In a society, those are the only issues that actually matter. Only if your definition of "society" ignores individuals and says that only society itself matters. Lots of individuals (including me) strongly disagree with that.
      - erichocean 6y ago
        Literally no one's definition of "society" ignores individuals. Not sure what you're on about.
        pdonis 6y ago
        > Literally no one's definition of "society" ignores individuals. Yours appears to since you say only social issues matter. You are ignoring that individuals have issues, and those issues matter too, because society has to respect individual rights, and that includes the individual right to resolve individual issues without micromanagement based on some busybody's beliefs about "social issues".
        erichocean 6y ago
        > because society has to respect individual rights That hasn't been true since the 1960s when the bulk of our Civil Rights legislation was passed. The prior legal regime already supported individual rights for all people; "Civil Rights" was about putting the health of society ahead of those individual rights. Actual 1st Amendment rights like "Freedom of Association" were severely curtailed by Civil Rights legislation; indeed, that was the entire point. Now, I probably agree with you about respecting individual rights. I would have liked (as far as I can tell, having not lived through it) the pre-Civil Rights legal regime because I'm a White, straight male. The culture back then was designed to work well for someone like me (and according to all historical evidence, it did). But that's no longer the culture in the US, and we're coming up on 60 years now since the rules were changed. I'm not sure what you want me to do about it, assuming I even could change things today (or would want to).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
Your argument is invalidated by the fact that apparently "conservative" judges here voted to SUPPORT LGBT rights in this case. The notion that the Supreme Court is an ideological legislative body is propaganda meant to subvert the integrity of the court. Some of the most liberally-hated conservative judges, just voted FOR LGBT rights here, because it's they believe it's what the law implies - not because it's what they believe is ethical. In fact, none of the dissenting opinions said that LGBT people don't deserve the same protections - they simply believed that it's congress's job to make those changes - and that's a hard point to argue honestly. Sowing partisanship by demonizing the people you disagree with, whilst also undermining the institutions our government is based on is... a really shitty thing to do.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > apparently "conservative" I think you answer your own objection right there. Conservatives don't conserve anything, it's liberalism with a speed limit. The United States doesn't have any party that is interested in conserving anything cultural or legal, anywhere. Which is great for Democrats (like myself). (There are many conservative voters in both parties, of course, and they would absolutely disagree with this latest ruling. But that's not the same as those voters having a party—there are literally no "conservative" elites in position of power in the Democrat or Republican parties, or anywhere else for that matter. We're effectively at year zero.) > not because it's what they believe No, they believe it. The courts are by far the fastest and best means of enacting liberal reforms today. Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves (quite the opposite, in fact—they consistently vote against them). Civil rights legal principles always trump any other law or principle, which is why it's the sole justification for all of these landmark cultural rulings. The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is as out-of-date with culture today as a statue of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. After the courts, we have to rely primarily on finance (private corporations) to push change; Goldman Sachs and assorted hedge funds are incredibly powerful allies in the long march towards progress.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Which is great for Democrats (like myself) I find it rather grimly ironic that a political party that calls itself "Democratic" endorses explicitly non democratic means for making reforms, on the grounds that, in your own words, "Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by jawns 6y ago

sterlind 6y ago

Ah, but Gorsuch is not liberal - at least, he was installed by the Republicans, and looked up to Scalia a lot, and was proposed by the Federalist Society. That's what makes this decision such a welcome surprise to me. Maybe textualism isn't a lie.

jawns 6y ago
That's quite true, although not totally invalidating my point, because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they apply to the Supreme Court tend to be too one-dimensional. Gorsuch and Roberts are definitely conservatives in some respects, but when it comes to social issues, they're more moderate/libertarian, in the vein of Anthony Kennedy. In fact, if you look at all of Roberts' opinions on social issues, outside of maybe abortion stuff, it's a little surprising that Roberts did not join in with Obergefell. Given that he _did_ dissent from Obergefell, it's also a little surprising he didn't dissent in Bostock. His rationale in Obergefell was that regardless of what he would like the law to say, he did not find that it said what the majority wanted it to say. That's essentially what Kavanaugh said in his dissent today. And to the extent that both cases could be characterized as determining that a right has been hidden in plain sight this whole time, I'm not really sure why Roberts went one way with Obergefell and the other way with Bostock.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > when it comes to social issues In a society, those are the only issues that actually matter.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > In a society, those are the only issues that actually matter. Only if your definition of "society" ignores individuals and says that only society itself matters. Lots of individuals (including me) strongly disagree with that.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      Literally no one's definition of "society" ignores individuals. Not sure what you're on about.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > Literally no one's definition of "society" ignores individuals. Yours appears to since you say only social issues matter. You are ignoring that individuals have issues, and those issues matter too, because society has to respect individual rights, and that includes the individual right to resolve individual issues without micromanagement based on some busybody's beliefs about "social issues".
        erichocean 6y ago
        > because society has to respect individual rights That hasn't been true since the 1960s when the bulk of our Civil Rights legislation was passed. The prior legal regime already supported individual rights for all people; "Civil Rights" was about putting the health of society ahead of those individual rights. Actual 1st Amendment rights like "Freedom of Association" were severely curtailed by Civil Rights legislation; indeed, that was the entire point. Now, I probably agree with you about respecting individual rights. I would have liked (as far as I can tell, having not lived through it) the pre-Civil Rights legal regime because I'm a White, straight male. The culture back then was designed to work well for someone like me (and according to all historical evidence, it did). But that's no longer the culture in the US, and we're coming up on 60 years now since the rules were changed. I'm not sure what you want me to do about it, assuming I even could change things today (or would want to).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

koheripbal 6y ago

Your argument is invalidated by the fact that apparently "conservative" judges here voted to SUPPORT LGBT rights in this case. The notion that the Supreme Court is an ideological legislative body is propaganda meant to subvert the integrity of the court. Some of the most liberally-hated conservative judges, just voted FOR LGBT rights here, because it's they believe it's what the law implies - not because it's what they believe is ethical. In fact, none of the dissenting opinions said that LGBT people don't deserve the same protections - they simply believed that it's congress's job to make those changes - and that's a hard point to argue honestly. Sowing partisanship by demonizing the people you disagree with, whilst also undermining the institutions our government is based on is... a really shitty thing to do.

erichocean 6y ago
> apparently "conservative" I think you answer your own objection right there. Conservatives don't conserve anything, it's liberalism with a speed limit. The United States doesn't have any party that is interested in conserving anything cultural or legal, anywhere. Which is great for Democrats (like myself). (There are many conservative voters in both parties, of course, and they would absolutely disagree with this latest ruling. But that's not the same as those voters having a party—there are literally no "conservative" elites in position of power in the Democrat or Republican parties, or anywhere else for that matter. We're effectively at year zero.) > not because it's what they believe No, they believe it. The courts are by far the fastest and best means of enacting liberal reforms today. Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves (quite the opposite, in fact—they consistently vote against them). Civil rights legal principles always trump any other law or principle, which is why it's the sole justification for all of these landmark cultural rulings. The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is as out-of-date with culture today as a statue of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. After the courts, we have to rely primarily on finance (private corporations) to push change; Goldman Sachs and assorted hedge funds are incredibly powerful allies in the long march towards progress.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Which is great for Democrats (like myself) I find it rather grimly ironic that a political party that calls itself "Democratic" endorses explicitly non democratic means for making reforms, on the grounds that, in your own words, "Voters cannot be relied upon to enact these kinds of changes themselves".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]