Uh oh. This Court doesnāt take the cases that most need adjudication, they takes the ones where they most want to make a point. With its current make-up, we should be worried about what that portends for civil rights.
āCongress was not thinking about transgender people when it included sex discrimination in Title VIIā
Again, here comes the dumbest argument. Sadly, this time thereāre five idiots who support it.
Gee, that sounds like the dreaded ājudicial activismā.
Maybe Barty will be too drunk to show up?
Heāll be trapped in the devilās triangle with Trump and Barr.
Given the precedent set by Obergefell, this could be decided on the basis of equal rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Despite the conservative majority, I am reasonably hopeful.
I donāt think thereās any doubt at all as to how the court will decide these three cases. I willing to wager all three will be 5-4 against LGBT people. Where do I put my money down?
Gay and Transgender are not the same thing. People have rights as men and women. Nowhere in the Constitution or any law is there a mention of people who refuse to adjust to their birth gender as having rights.
āRefuseā? I hope thatās not the word you were looking for.
Every person has the same civil rights under the US Constitution.
You need to reassess your prejudices and your fears.
Your comment is despicable and repulsive.
Letās not forget uninformed and really ill-thought-out. (Texas was, ironically, the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of just this kind of toxic reasoning.)
I could foresee this court ruling against LGBT rights as a way of destroying employee rights in generalā¦
I would say, quoting the scientist about a poorly thought-out hypothesis, itās ānot even wrongā.
Exactly. You serve at the pleasure of your lord and master. If you donāt like it, get another job.
Show yourself to the door.
Yup, took a quick look and see that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments referenced by @thunderclapnewman talk about āpersons,ā which clearly excludes transgender individuals who cannot possibly be considered to be āpersonsā when they so blatantly violate the precepts of natural law by ā[refusing] to adjust to their birth gender.ā
And we all know that Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are strong advocates for judicial precedent because thatās what they told us in their confirmation hearings. But sometimes you are forced to overrule precedent when it is so clearly wrong as a matter of law and logic, i.e., it offends your sincerely held religious beliefs. You are showing much more confidence in this Court than I have. Even if they donāt overrule Obergefell they very well may not expand its protection.
Itās Roberts that we need to deal with here.
The others are a lost cause.
But Roberts is very concerned about his legacy, and he doesnāt want to tarnish it.
There were some on the Left who were pleading with voters who fell into the ABC (anyone but clinton) category Nov. 2016 that even if you didnāt like Clinton, think of how their vote counted towards SCOTUS selection.
The ABCāers responded that they would not be pushed into a guilt trip on voting for SCOTUS and that they would vote their conscience.
huh.
Or in jail. One can hope.