3 ms·

I mean, obviously, yes, I agree -- the conditions are not even remotely parallel, and this decision is clearly just a case of the Supreme Court expanding a law

I mean, obviously, yes, I agree -- the conditions are not even remotely parallel, and this decision is clearly just a case of the Supreme Court expanding a law in a direction that is _clearly_ the correct direction. They are acting here as legislators, fixing a bad law to be better, and the "logic" they use to justify it is clearly incorrect and not internally consistent, and is just a patina of justification around the decision to legislate from the bench. We should be way more angry at our representatives in Congress who have refused to incorporate this language into the law than at the justices who oppose this opinion on what seem to me to be much more well-reasoned grounds that are unrelated to their opinions on the treatment of these classes of people. Still, expediency here counts for something, and in the end this is a positive move with tangible gains in the near term.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
I actually agree with all of this, though it probably doesn't frustrate me as much. The courts are supposed to be a check on the legislature after all. Democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. The courts are supposed to prevent this tyranny of the majority, and protect the rights of individuals. This decision, to me, is a perfect example of that process working exactly as the founders intended when they set up the three branches of government. I'm reminded a bit of the gay marriage debacle in the late aughts. At the time, people were arguing that we should just strike the word "marriage" from all our laws, and replace it with "domestic partnership". Let "marriage" be a purely religious term, a process that happens in whatever church someone happens to attend, then everyone would be happy (theoretically). In actuality, the legislators arguing against gay marriage weren't really arguing in good faith, and they very much wanted "marriage" defined, in law, as a relationship between a man and a woman. This stubbornness forced gay marriage advocates to go through the courts, which worked for a bit, until it didn't (Prop 8), until it did (Obergefell v. Hodges). It's not ideal, but as long as the courts are on the side of protecting people from having their rights legislated away, I'm not tremendously bothered by these examples of legislating from the bench.
- andrewla 6y ago
  I think there's a solid point in this regard because when they rule on legislative issues (as opposed to constitutional) there is a remedy for the legislature to override if the interpreted behavior was not what the legislature wants (rather than just intended). At this point, to reverse this, Republican (presumably) congressmen would have to actively introduce legislation excluding the protections for LGBT individuals, which would make it much more unpalatable than the current strategy of "dragging their feet" (as with gay marriage) to prevent the law from moving forward. My only fear, probably unjustified, is that the logic and precedent used here can be used to generalize the protections in unexpected and undesirable ways.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

I actually agree with all of this, though it probably doesn't frustrate me as much. The courts are supposed to be a check on the legislature after all. Democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. The courts are supposed to prevent this tyranny of the majority, and protect the rights of individuals. This decision, to me, is a perfect example of that process working exactly as the founders intended when they set up the three branches of government. I'm reminded a bit of the gay marriage debacle in the late aughts. At the time, people were arguing that we should just strike the word "marriage" from all our laws, and replace it with "domestic partnership". Let "marriage" be a purely religious term, a process that happens in whatever church someone happens to attend, then everyone would be happy (theoretically). In actuality, the legislators arguing against gay marriage weren't really arguing in good faith, and they very much wanted "marriage" defined, in law, as a relationship between a man and a woman. This stubbornness forced gay marriage advocates to go through the courts, which worked for a bit, until it didn't (Prop 8), until it did (Obergefell v. Hodges). It's not ideal, but as long as the courts are on the side of protecting people from having their rights legislated away, I'm not tremendously bothered by these examples of legislating from the bench.

andrewla 6y ago
I think there's a solid point in this regard because when they rule on legislative issues (as opposed to constitutional) there is a remedy for the legislature to override if the interpreted behavior was not what the legislature wants (rather than just intended). At this point, to reverse this, Republican (presumably) congressmen would have to actively introduce legislation excluding the protections for LGBT individuals, which would make it much more unpalatable than the current strategy of "dragging their feet" (as with gay marriage) to prevent the law from moving forward. My only fear, probably unjustified, is that the logic and precedent used here can be used to generalize the protections in unexpected and undesirable ways.