The Supreme Court conservatives who refused to join Justices Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and the court’s liberal wing to protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination issued stinging dissents to Monday’s blockbuster ruling.
I’m beginning to think Roberts is starting to see the light. Time will tell, but people do turn away from the dark side sometimes. I have hope for him.
Gorsuch said that the “limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”
That is the best argument against “originalism” I have ever heard. Can we apply that to the second amendment?
Alito might want to keep a blood pressure cuff nearby.
He could be next.
Kavanaugh is not intellectually qualified to be on the court. Dude writes like a sophomore.
Ugh, it’s not that the majority is “rewriting history”, it’s that modern cultural values are finally enabling the humans who adjudicate legal disputes (i.e. judges) to call a spade a spade.
Of course not. The Second Amendment is a real amendment. It’s not like all that other filler crap.
“The arrogance of this argument is breathtaking,” Alito said.
His dissent compared the firing of an LGBT employee for being gay or transgender to the firing of an employee because his or her astrological sign.
Begrudgingly I agree, Alito is a Cancer and should be fired.
Shorter Kavanaugh > I like beer!
Justice Samual Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, accused the majority of “[u]surping the constitutional authority of the other branches” and said that a “more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
Gore v. Bush,
Justice Samual Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, accused the majority of “[u]surping the constitutional authority of the other branches” and said that a “more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”
Uh, I’m recalling your rape of the Voting Rights Act. Does that count as brazen abuse to overturn a unanimous (or near unanimous) Senate/House vote?
Oh, I’m loving this. “Of course we recognize that the discrimination addressed here is antithetical to our values as a nation. I have at least one gay friend myself and another I’m pretty sure about. But the way the majority arrived at this decision shows them to be worse people than Hitler.”
"…a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated –the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”
Can’t have that! Imagine having laws that reflect the current values of society…shocking!
Better we have things just as they were in the 18th century, when white, straight, christian, men decided everything.
“Even idiosyncratic criteria are permitted; if an employer thinks that Scorpios make bad employees, the employer can refuse to hire Scorpios,”
Or Republicans? Or Federalist Soc. Members?
My sense is that he is also less wound up in the whole conservative political circles in D.C. the way some of the other conservatives are. Never underestimate the power of immediate social circles to influence one’s thinking.
As a gay man, II actually kind of agree with the dissenters – at least in terms of anti-gay discrimination. Discrimination based on sexual preference is separate and distinct from discrimination based on gender.
But they’re dead wrong when it comes to transgendered rights – Title VII clearly covers “sex” as in gender, and therefore covers not just CIS gendered, but transgendered people as will.
.
Hey, did we ever redefine that whole 3/5 of a person thing in the Constitution…
Gotta love some of the Supremes for INSISTING DAMMIT that some people are a little less equal UNDER THE LAW.
They could quit, right? I mean if they’re that unhappy…
First they came for the Scorpios, and I said nothing, for I was not a Scorpio. Then they came for the Republicans and Federalist Society Members, who were also mostly Republicans I suppose, but anyway I said now we’re getting somewhere!