Pamela Karlan, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of LGBTQ workplace protections, asserted on Monday that the stunning victory was a result of simply following the law as written.
Question for fellow commenters: Recall Indianapolis Catholic high schools firing gay teachers who married?
My former hs, Brebeuf Prep, resisted and was expelled from the Indy diocese. The others opted to fire teachers.
Do these teachers have recourse under this decision, or does being private religious schools exempt their employers?
“Why did we win? Because we got six votes!”
Seriously, kudos to Prof. Karlan and those with her. And to the plaintiffs, who suffered so much (one died before the ruling), and waited so long.
Cuz it was the right thing to do?
Yes that Prof. Karlan.
the stunning victory was a result of simply following the law as written.
This is what the winner always says. Of course, the losers also say their rejected position is a result of following the text of the law as written:
our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” [Alito, dissent]
The idea that judges simply follow textualist principles and arrive at an inevitable result is pure fantasy.
More commonly, the result is chosen first and the reasoning follows afterwards.
“Title VII says you can’t fire a worker because of that worker’s sex,” she explained. “If you have two workers named Bobby, one of whom is male and one is female, and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don’t fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete, that’s sex discrimination, pure and simple.”
Works for me.
Karlan is right, but it also is important to recognize that her arguement was made back in the 60s early 70s and was rejected by lower courts. Gorsuch alludes to this, see Opinion at 26
And I think we should just realize that his ruling - well well supported by the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is really the result of social progress. Had this been even the 1980s, the Court would have likely overlooked what the actual text of the law said.
The difference in justices is that Gorsuch and Roberts are willing to put aside the blinders of their prejudice, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito are not.
This is an extraordinary ruling.
Defining “sex” to mean “sex including sexual orientation or transition,” where sexual orientation or transition is the differentiating factor, is the kind of progressive adjudication that “original intent” believers are right (in their wrongheaded way) to scream about.
I don’t know what it tells us about where Roberts and Gorsuch are headed, but today is a good day for them.
Competent lawyer, simple argument, plus Gorsuch and Roberts’ departure from their twisting reasonings in previous opinions. Let’s hope it continues.
A key belief of conservatives is that laws should be applied based upon who the person is because it wouldn’t be fair to treat bad people the same as good people. That’s why they think the Constitution only protects innocent people (ie, white christian conservatives), while guilty people shouldn’t get lawyers, trials, due process, or any other legal protections because they’re guilty and should be punished immediately.
Liberals often label this as hypocrisy because conservatives have one standard for themselves and another for others but there’s nothing hypocritical about it at all. That’s literally how they think things SHOULD be and they complain any time a conservative is held to the same standard they hold liberals to. They don’t have standards. They only care about their team winning and the other team losing.
Since teachers aren’t preachers, the diocese isn’t exempt under the ministerial exemption, and the religious organization exemption only allows discrimination based on religion, not on any of the other protected classes.
Therefore, it’s now confirmed to be against the law for them to discriminate against gay/trans people in the way you described.
A textualist? An originalist?
I’m a Mr. Dooley-ist, “The Supreme Court follows the election returns”.
Gorsuch and Roberts can see which way the wind is blowing.
Good thing she didn’t use the name Barron.
LOL! Love it. Hoisted by their own petards…
SCOTUS heard the case regarding ministerial exemption case – specifically its application to teachers in religious schools – last month and I do not think it issued a ruling yet. IIRC, commentators believed that a number of conservative justices, possibly all five, are likely to allow extremely flimsy pretenses to be sufficient for classifying teachers as ministers. IANAL and I also do not recall all and latest details.
No, that’s not what happened here. Justice prevailed, for sure, but not in any way, shape, or form because Gorsuch and Roberts give a damn about LGBTQ equality.
“Title VII says you can’t fire a worker because of that worker’s sex,” she explained. “If you have two workers named Bobby, one of whom is male and one is female, and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don’t fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete, that’s sex discrimination, pure and simple.”
Simple enough that you would think even alcoholic rapists would understand.
True, but that isn’t their job. It’s their job to interpret whether laws reflect the constitution, and if one does, how it’s application is determined given conflicting ideas. Gorsuch and Roberts recognized that this one met it’s goal.
Sadly, we can’t expect they’ll recognize voting rights laws.
You are right on the law. But if we have learned anything in the last 20 years, being right on the law and the constitution means less to our current Republican Supreme Court.
That is the law won this time but we know from the past that probably has more to do with a relative of the Gorsuch than anything written in the constitution or passed by congress.
Hence based on Republican Supreme Court Justices making decisions that are results based depending on who are the parties, I would make it even money or better the diocese will still win.