Author Topic: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights  (Read 3539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
So did anyone have any money on Gorsuch joining Roberts and the "Liberals" on the US Supreme Court in holding that "sex" in Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act also applies to LGBTQ individuals?

Quote
Why Trump's Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch just protected LGBTQ rights

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter - Updated 5:31 PM ET, Mon June 15, 2020

(CNN)Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, delivered an opinion Monday that will change how more than 7 million LGBTQ individuals will live and work in the United States.

It is a watershed moment from an unlikely author that means gay, lesbian and transgender workers are protected by federal civil rights law. It is a stunning defeat for judicial conservatives who worked to ensure Gorsuch's nomination and Republicans, including Donald Trump, who stymied President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, liberal Merrick Garland in 2016.
The ruling puts Gorsuch in the history books.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Gorsuch wrote, which bars discrimination "because of sex," also covers claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity

...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-lgbtq-rights/index.html

Good on ya', mate!

I'm waiting for Trump's tweet on this.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 268,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,259
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2020, 20:18:09 »
It shouldn’t be crazy, he’s already commented.

Trump called the decision "very powerful" and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They've ruled and we live with the decision," Trump said. "We live with the decision of the Supreme Court."

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2020, 20:32:13 »
It shouldn’t be crazy, he’s already commented.

Trump called the decision "very powerful" and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They've ruled and we live with the decision," Trump said. "We live with the decision of the Supreme Court."

I see that. It's very interesting and almost hearkens back to when he was a Democrat.

Let's wait for a few more days for his base to tell him how dissatisfied they are with the decision.

Quote
Some commentators argued that the ruling may serve to destabilize the shaky coalition between Trump and his evangelical voters, based largely on the promise of conservative judges like Gorsuch delivering socially conservative rulings. “The whole point of the Federalist Society judicial project, the whole point of electing Trump to implement it, was to deliver Supreme Court victories to social conservatives,” tweeted National Review contributor and Arc Digital columnist Varad Mehta. “If they can't deliver anything that basic, there's no point for either. The damage is incalculable.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/15/they-ruled-and-we-can-live-with-their-decision-trump-reacts-to-very-powerful-supreme-court-decision-protecting-lgbtq-workers/#3011e1735cf3

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2020, 20:33:53 »
Sometimes people in positions of power simply do the right thing, regardless of the expectations of the masses or perhaps of those who orchestrated their appointment. Good on Gorsuch for being on the right side of history.

EDIT: Aaaaand, I should have known better than to go glance at it, but a bunch of the American right wing commentariat on Twitter are predictably unhinged over this. It's amusing but also frightening.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 20:40:31 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 214
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2020, 20:42:49 »
I'm amused because it is entirely a no-nonsense decision, just going by the cases used to evaluate and render it. It's perfectly reasonable, so I am baffled as to why it is even considered a shock.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2020, 20:48:52 »
I'm amused because it is entirely a no-nonsense decision, just going by the cases used to evaluate and render it. It's perfectly reasonable, so I am baffled as to why it is even considered a shock.

Because Gorsuch was basically pushed by a social conservative movement. He was expected to deliver consistently socially conservative decisions. Stuff like this will significantly undermine Trump's USSC appointments in the eyes of, and may disenchant, a lot of evangelicals.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2020, 21:09:10 »
I like this line Gorsuch wrote.

Quote
Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,311
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2020, 21:26:24 »
Makes me like him more that he seems to separate his beliefs from his job, atleast in this instance
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 214
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2020, 21:45:55 »
Because Gorsuch was basically pushed by a social conservative movement. He was expected to deliver consistently socially conservative decisions. Stuff like this will significantly undermine Trump's USSC appointments in the eyes of, and may disenchant, a lot of evangelicals.

I disagree, because it seems to me that this was indeed a socially conservative decision, just as much as it is a socially liberal one. From what I've been able to determine, what Gorsuch did was exactly what he said he would do - sticking with the actual text as the paramount consideration, which is an exceedingly impartial approach. I think by the end of his career, he will be as equally liked by both sides as he will be disliked. That just means his role is beyond critical.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2020, 22:06:48 »
I disagree, because it seems to me that this was indeed a socially conservative decision, just as much as it is a socially liberal one. From what I've been able to determine, what Gorsuch did was exactly what he said he would do - sticking with the actual text as the paramount consideration, which is an exceedingly impartial approach. I think by the end of his career, he will be as equally liked by both sides as he will be disliked. That just means his role is beyond critical.

With respect, I'm not sure you're grasping what 'social conservative' means in the context of American judicial appointees.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2020, 22:13:08 »
I disagree, because it seems to me that this was indeed a socially conservative decision, just as much as it is a socially liberal one. From what I've been able to determine, what Gorsuch did was exactly what he said he would do - sticking with the actual text as the paramount consideration, which is an exceedingly impartial approach. I think by the end of his career, he will be as equally liked by both sides as he will be disliked. That just means his role is beyond critical.

True enough as to what Gorsuch did, but you have to remember that the minority in this case is saying that they too are using literal interpretation: it's the text that matters and "sex" doesn't equal "sexual orientation". Alito must have put about a dozen dictionary definitions into his Appendix to establish that.

The way to "literally interpret the actual text" is a very subtle thing. I personally think the majority were right, and not just because I like the decision, but because interpreting "because of sex" is actually a simpler thing than the social conservatives would have us believe.

I don't think that "literal interpretation" is a social conservative thing; it's a facet of statutory interpretation. While social conservatives may like to say they are dealing with "literal interpretation" what they are really doing is trying to freeze the interpretation of laws in the context of a biblically oriented eighteenth or 19th century society. That's essentially what the employers were arguing in this case; that the court should interpret the use of the word "sex" as it would have been understood by the 1964 Congress.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 214
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2020, 23:08:31 »
True enough as to what Gorsuch did, but you have to remember that the minority in this case is saying that they too are using literal interpretation: it's the text that matters and "sex" doesn't equal "sexual orientation". Alito must have put about a dozen dictionary definitions into his Appendix to establish that.

The way to "literally interpret the actual text" is a very subtle thing. I personally think the majority were right, and not just because I like the decision, but because interpreting "because of sex" is actually a simpler thing than the social conservatives would have us believe.

I don't think that "literal interpretation" is a social conservative thing; it's a facet of statutory interpretation. While social conservatives may like to say they are dealing with "literal interpretation" what they are really doing is trying to freeze the interpretation of laws in the context of a biblically oriented eighteenth or 19th century society. That's essentially what the employers were arguing in this case; that the court should interpret the use of the word "sex" as it would have been understood by the 1964 Congress.

 :cheers:

Most of the American conservatives I know are pleased with this decision, so I suspect those who are upset about it are less 'social conservative' and more 'traditionalist.' But I am not going to change definitions midstream. Absolutely, it's a subtle thing to literally interpret the actual text, I deal with it regularly when translating classical documents (currently working on a few pages of Hippocrates). To translate is to interpret, and to interpret is to translate. The trick is to do exactly as what has been done here - limit oneself to definitions which would have been understood by the original authors *except* where alternate definitions can be identified within the society that existed at the time of the authoring. The more permissive reading of 'sex' in this case would be a clear example - even without it, Transgender individuals should have clearly been protected.

I hate to tell this to those who want to lock interpretations into the context you mention, but the Bible itself warns against doing such things!  :not-again:
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 23:17:34 by Xylric »

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 629
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2020, 12:39:20 »
It shouldn’t be crazy, he’s already commented.

Trump called the decision "very powerful" and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They've ruled and we live with the decision," Trump said. "We live with the decision of the Supreme Court."

Appointments like Gorsuch and decisions like this are exactly why people voted for Trump and will again.

"But regardless of who got the better of the lawyering, Bostock shows that those who group all the “conservative” justices together are missing the boat. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are both committed textualists, and both were appointed not just by a Republican president but by the same one (Trump). Progressive critics who discount their independence or claim they’re just result-oriented reactionaries have egg on their face."  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-decision-bostock-v-clayton-county-we-are-all-textualists-now/

Trump's reaction is as expected.  Never mind the extreme right and extreme left the MSM give far too much air time to, for... reasons.   

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2020, 14:22:25 »
If I gather Gorsuch's opinion correctly he seems to be saying the following:

A man is a man. 

A woman is a woman.

Society accepts men acting as men.  The actions are acceptable to society.

Society accepts women acting as women.  The actions are acceptable to society

The actions should be no less acceptable to society just because they are done by a man or a woman.

If a woman chooses to act like a man that is her concern.  Her actions are no less acceptable simply because she is a woman.

If a man chooses to act like a woman that is his concern. His actions are no less acceptable simply because he is a man.

To accept the act but no the actor would be to discriminate against the actor solely on the basis of whether they are man or woman - their sex.

And that is illegal.

Meanwhile the intrinsic difference between XX and XY is preserved.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2020, 18:14:43 »
According to Alito what Gorsuch did was:

Quote
"The Court's opinion is like a pirate ship," Alito said. "It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is 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. "

 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2020, 18:32:43 »
Is it of any importance to note that we are still only talking about an "opinion"?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2020, 18:52:21 »
Is it of any importance to note that we are still only talking about an "opinion"?

Since ‘opinion’ in this context means a judicial decision on a major case in the highest court of the land, which settled a contentious and important law affecting the equal rights of millions... I guess not?
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2020, 20:01:26 »
Is it of any importance to note that we are still only talking about an "opinion"?

The ultimate paragraph of the majority's "opinion" makes it both a judicial decision and final order:

Quote
The judgments of the Second and Sixth Circuits in Nos.
17–1623 and 18–107 are affirmed. The judgment of the
Eleventh Circuit in No. 17–1618 is reversed, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.

While the US judiciary uses the phrase "opinion" we in Canada use the term "reasons" or "reasons for decision". In either case it merely means "this is why we have made the decision we have".

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2020, 21:22:09 »
I am happy to accept the ref's opinion as the final word.  It was an honest debate before an honest ref. I am not really bothered if there was truth or right involved.  See you at the next match.  Who's buying? 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2020, 21:30:44 »
While the findings will annoy traditionalists and social conservatives, they at least know and can understand why he did what he did. So they can bet on roughly 50% of the cases going the way they would like. With a more left wing "activist" judge, likley they would get 15-20% of the cases going their way.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2020, 23:41:58 »
Aaaand! It took this long.

Quote
Trump calls for ‘new justices’ on Supreme Court, as conservatives rage at Roberts
Adam ShawBy Adam Shaw | Fox News

President Trump, in the wake of Thursday's defeat at the Supreme Court in his efforts to repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, called for new justices as conservatives took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts for what they called a “pattern” of siding with the liberal wing in key decisions.

“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court. If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and ... Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!”  he tweeted.

He went on to promise that he will release a “new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees, which may include some, or many of those already on the list, by September 1, 2020.”

Trump’s call comes after the court ruled Thursday, in a 5-4 decision penned by Roberts, that his reversal of former President Barack Obama’s executive order –­ that shielded immigrants who came to the country illegally as children from deportation –­ was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out rulemaking procedures for federal agencies.

...

See rest of article here

 :pop:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 214
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2020, 00:00:22 »
Aaaand! It took this long.

See rest of article here

 :pop:

One thing I have wondered about, since I am still young in the ways of US politics, is if there is anything abnormal about this. Hasn't every president essentially have the Supreme Court slap them across the face like this in some way? I mean, that is one of its core functions, isn't it?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2020, 00:24:25 »
That's my understanding and it annoys him that he cannot influence it or stack the deck as much as he would like. the main difference between Trump and the Dems, is that he will have a tantrum when things don't go his way and do it publicly. The Dems are more insidious, more or less boiling the frog and forcing cultural changes with the same determination, but more hidden. With Trump you know what you are getting, whether you like him, dislike or tolerate him due to a lack of better choice.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 244,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,389
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2020, 21:44:10 »
And in other Supreme Court news.

What the Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision Means
Trump promised to appoint justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade. The chief justice just made sure that won’t happen before the 2020 election.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/supreme-court-abortion-trump/613642/
Quote
EMMA GREEN    JUNE 29, 2020   12:33 PM ET

Chief Justice John Roberts balked.

This morning, the Supreme Court announced its decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first big test of whether, and how, this Court—with two Donald Trump appointees—would revise abortion rights in the United States. When Trump was running for president, he explicitly promised to appoint judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the constitutionality of abortion. Today, the Court has repudiated Trump’s promise with its decision in June Medical. While the ruling does not signal that abortion is safe at the Supreme Court, it’s a message that anti-abortion advocates cannot simply expect the Court to reverse abortion rights just because conservative justices now dominate the bench.

In 2018, when Justice Anthony Kennedy, who formerly acted as the Court’s main swing voter on social issues, announced his retirement, commentators were quick to pronounce abortion rights dead: “Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted the New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin. And yet, today, the liberal wing of the Court won.

June Medical concerns a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which in theory meant they could immediately address emergency medical situations that arise during the procedure, but in practice served to limit the number of medical professionals who can legally terminate pregnancies. In the judgment of the Court, this case is nearly identical to one it decided just four years ago, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, about a strikingly similar law in Texas. When faced with the prospect of overturning such a fresh precedent—even though he disagreed with the outcome of that case—Roberts was unwilling to potentially undermine the legitimacy of the Court.

The Louisiana law that was at stake in June Medical embodies the anti-abortion movement’s strategy over the past decade. For at least the past 10 years, activists have pushed state-level regulations on abortion clinics. These restrictions are ostensibly designed to protect the health and safety of women. “The vast majority of Americans support patient-protection laws because they recognize that abortion practitioners should meet the same standard of care as any other physician,” Catherine Glenn Foster, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, one of the national groups leading this effort, told me. When the Court considered a Texas law along these lines in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, however, it found that it placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. June Medical Services effectively asked the new conservative majority on the Court to overturn precedent, effectively giving a green light to anti-abortion activists who have worked to restrict abortion at the state level.

The composition of the Court appeared favorable to the challenge. Roberts voted with the minority in Whole Woman’s Health. And the new justices on the Court, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, are both conservatives who have written passionately about the importance of religion in America and have expressed skepticism of the Court’s record on abortion rights. Despite these shared views on abortion jurisprudence, Roberts has recently been concerned about the Court’s partisan appearance. “I’ve always thought this [case] was a particularly difficult ask for Roberts, who has been very public about his concern for the Court’s reputation and institutional legitimacy,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, told me. In 2018, Roberts went so far as to rebuke the president’s claim that judges can be relied on to vote a certain way simply because of who appointed them: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he told the Associated Press. Cases concerning abortion are arguably the ultimate test of this principle. “It is a challenge for him, in this case, as many people would react to a Louisiana victory by accusing the the Court of being an appendage of a political party,” Cary Franklin, a law professor at the University of Texas, told me.

In an opinion concurring with the majority decision, which was written by the liberal-leaning Justice Stephen Breyer, Roberts was explicit that he is not defending abortion rights. He is defending the Court. “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided,” he wrote. “The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” The legal doctrine of stare decisis, which means “to stand by things decided,” requires courts to treat similar cases alike, he wrote. Otherwise, it’s difficult for Americans to know what the law actually says. While Louisiana had argued that the facts of this case were substantively different from those in Texas, Roberts didn’t buy it. His unwillingness to go along with the argument that abortion regulations in each state should be treated differently is a clear signal to anti-abortion activists that they may have to shift their legal strategy. “It may be popping the balloon of the anti-abortion movement,” Ziegler said.

And yet, this decision does not mean that abortion rights will be automatically protected by the Supreme Court in future cases. Roberts was clear that he is still critical of the way Whole Woman’s Health was decided, and there are countless abortion-related challenges, focused on entirely different issues, currently winding their way through the federal court system. And the Court will likely continue to hear cases about incremental restrictions on abortion rights.

Although Trump’s appointments have shifted the Court in many significant ways, this case is a sign that the institution cannot be rapidly transformed to meet the political needs of the current administration. For groups that have worked closely with the president to change the makeup of the Supreme Court and limit abortion rights, the decision in June Medical is a major strategic loss. “Today’s ruling is a bitter disappointment,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an influential anti-abortion-rights advocacy organization, in a statement. “It demonstrates once again the failure of the Supreme Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry.” For activists and scholars who support abortion rights, however, this is a victory—not just because the Court decided in their favor, but because it shows that even controversial issues such as abortion will not be wholly decided by political imperatives. “We should celebrate because it’s also a sign that there’s something going on,” Aziza Ahmed, a law professor at Northeastern University, told me. “We can’t just assume that because we have a conservative majority, the right will always win.”
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2020, 02:26:13 »
Short form: "courts working as intended, despite dire predictions"

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2020, 07:38:11 »
Aaaand! It took this long.

See rest of article here

 :pop:

I’m not sure he’s temperamentally equipped to deal with situations that he cannot resolve either by coercing or simply firing someone who makes a decision he doesn’t like. We’ve been seeing it in international relations, and now we’re seeing it in the judiciary. The protective benefits to democracy of appointed, tenured justices are revealing themselves.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2020, 08:24:50 »
Another editorial about the abortion case here; basically pointing out that this only got struck down because it was a stupid and lazy attempt. (The opinion is fairly biased, but raises some interesting bits about the already limited access and the impact this would have had)


Quote
Despite the supreme court abortion ruling, John Roberts has not become a liberal
Moira Donegan

The supreme court upheld the status quo on Monday, declining to further erode women’s rights for the time being. The court sided with plaintiffs representing Louisiana abortion providers in the case June Medical Services v Russo. The ruling, composed of one opinion signed by the four liberal justices and a very narrow concurrence by Chief Justice John Roberts, throws out a restrictive Louisiana law that aimed to close clinics by requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The decision upholds the court’s own 2016 precedent, Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt, which threw out an identical law in Texas just four years ago.
The US supreme court has given LGBTQ Americans a rare bit of good news
Moira Donegan
Read more

If the Louisiana law had been upheld, getting an abortion in Louisiana would have gone from difficult to nearly impossible. The state already has a grand total of three abortion clinics, which are staffed by a total of just five providers. Only one of those providers was able to gain hospital admitting privileges as the law required, and he had already stated publicly that if the law went into effect, he would not continue providing abortions (he stated concerns about clinic security and his own personal safety as reasons to not continue as the state’s only abortion provider). That the law was overturned does not mean that abortion is now easy to get in Louisiana; like other states, Louisiana’s available abortion care is dwarfed by demand, and many women, especially in poor and Black communities, cannot reach, find or afford the abortions that they need. It is still too hard to get an abortion in Louisiana and in much of the US. This ruling simply means that it will not become even harder.
Advertisement

But because the Louisiana law at issue was identical to the Texas law, and because the Texas law was declared unconstitutional by the court just four years ago, the case was less about the merits than it was about the supreme court as an institution. Nothing has changed since the Whole Women’s Health decision in 2016 except the makeup of the court itself: of the nine justices who presided over Whole Women’s Health, one conservative died and one swing vote retired, and Scalia and Kennedy were replaced by arch-conservatives and committed misogynists under Donald Trump, in the form of Neil Gorsuch and multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh.

[...] more on the site
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/30/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-john-roberts

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2020, 16:51:34 »
multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh  and yet not convicted and the accusations were a mess. I am glad the person that wrote this is not in a position of power as would abuse it.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2020, 17:16:36 »
multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh  and yet not convicted and the accusations were a mess. I am glad the person that wrote this is not in a position of power as would abuse it.

Concur; I read stuff from multiple sources and both the left and right are equally deranged in their own special way. Anyway, didn't know about the background context though, which was where this would have effectively shut down the few remaining abortion clinics in the state with an arbitrary and very difficult to secure admin requirement that provided no actual benefit, so thought I would share with the caveat included above.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2020, 17:27:30 »
Concur; I read stuff from multiple sources and both the left and right are equally deranged in their own special way. Anyway, didn't know about the background context though, which was where this would have effectively shut down the few remaining abortion clinics in the state with an arbitrary and very difficult to secure admin requirement that provided no actual benefit, so thought I would share with the caveat included above.

A requirement to be affiliated with a hospital seems logical, but the devil is in the details.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2020, 18:46:13 »
Another snippet of "background context" is that the law required a particular group of outpatient surgeries to operate under the same condition as the rest of outpatient surgeries in the state: to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case things go wrong.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 397
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2020, 20:53:09 »
A requirement to be affiliated with a hospital seems logical, but the devil is in the details.

It is private health care, not public. If they so choose not to be affiliated with a hospital I would argue it is their right.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2020, 21:16:22 »
Good luck with that.  There are plenty of things private entities must and must not do.  Apparently individual rights, and public health and safety, are too important to be left to choice.  That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 244,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,389
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2020, 00:17:29 »
Another snippet of "background context" is that the law required a particular group of outpatient surgeries to operate under the same condition as the rest of outpatient surgeries in the state: to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case things go wrong.

Not quite.  But as Colin P wrote "the devil is in the details".

What the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act stated was:

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=914189
Quote
(2) On the date the abortion is performed or induced, a physician performing
or inducing an abortion shall:
(a) Have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further
than thirty milesfrom the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and
that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services. For purposes of this
Section, "active admitting privileges" means that the physician is a member in good
standing of the medical staff of a hospital that is currently licensed by the
department, with the ability to admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical
services to such patient consistent with the requirements of Paragraph (A)(1) of this
Subsection.

However, when compared to what Louisiana requires of "Ambulatory Surgical Centers" (ASC)

http://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/Rulemaking/NoticesofIntent/February2017/ACSLicStdNOIOct2016LAC.pdf
Quote
Medical Staff—those physicians, dentists, podiatrists
and other medical practitioners who are authorized to
practice in the center according to these standards and the
requirements of the governing authority

§4509. General
. . .
F. The treating or admitting physician shall be
responsible for effecting safe and immediate transfer of
patients from the center to a hospital when, in his opinion,
hospital care is indicated. The center is responsible for
developing written procedures for safe transfer of patients.
The physician responsible for effective transfer shall be a
member in good standing of the medical staff of one or more
hospitals in the community. Refer to Medical Staff, §4535 of
these standards.
. . .
§4535. Medical Staff
. . .
E. It is expected that each center will attempt to secure a
written transfer agreement with at least one hospital in the
community. If the hospital refuses to cooperate, the center
will maintain documented evidence of its attempt to acquire
such an agreement. A transfer agreement shall serve as
evidence of a procedure whereby patients can be transferred
to a hospital should an emergency arise which would
necessitate admission to a hospital. Since it might not be
possible for the center to obtain a written transfer agreement,
the center's compliance with the requirements of the next
paragraph will be evidence of its capability to obtain hospital
care for a patient if the need arises. Even though the center
may have been successful in its attempt to secure a transfer
agreement, the conditions of the following paragraphs must
be met.
1. Each member of the medical staff of the center
shall also be a member in good standing of the medical staff
of at least one hospital in the co munity and that hospital(s)
must be currently licensed by the Department of Health and
Human Resources. Members of the center medical staff shall
be granted surgical privileges compatible with privileges
grant hospital for that physician.

I notice a difference in how the now struck abortion law defined "medical staff" as compared to the definition in the ASC regulations.

But Louisiana does not require all abortions to be performed in a "licensed clinic", nor are all abortions surgical procedures, nor do they usually require general anesthesia which is often an element of procedures performed in ASCs.

http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/1036
Quote
One -7 Weeks

The abortion pill regimen, also known as RU-486, is a drug combination designed to end pregnancies up to 49 days after the last menstrual period (five weeks since conception).

The Abortion Pill Regimen

The abortion pill regimen is a combination of drugs that results in a chemical abortion. The pills must be taken in the doctor's office or clinic.

13 Weeks

Suction curettage (also referred to as vacuum aspiration) is generally used during the first trimester. Unless there are complications, this procedure is done on an outpatient basis and may be done in a physician’s office or a clinic.

Not all surgical procedures are performed in "licensed ambulatory surgical centers" or "hospitals"; what immediately comes to mind are vasectomies and circumcisions as well as many dermatology and plastics procedure that are done in a doctor's office.  What can be done in a Louisianan doctor's office is governed by the Professional and Occupational Standards issued by the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, Board of Medical Examiners; specifically, Chapter 73 Office-Based Surgery (page 47)

https://www.lsbme.la.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Rules/Individual%20Rules/Physicians%20June%202020.pdf

This is what they consider necessary if unforeseen complications require a patient to be transferred to a hospital.

Quote
7. Emergencies and Transfers
a. Emergency instructions along with the names and
telephones numbers to be called in the event of an emergency
(i.e., emergency medical services ["EMS"], ambulance,
hospital, 911, etc.) shall be posted at each telephone in the
facility.
b. Agreements with local EMS or ambulance
services shall be in place for the purpose of transferring a
patient to a hospital in the event of an emergency.
c. Pre-existing arrangements shall be established for
definitive care of patients at a hospital located within a
reasonable proximity when extended or emergency services
are needed to protect the health or well being of the patient.

I don't see any requirement in those rules for doctors performing procedures in their offices (some of which may be as interventional or more so than an abortion) to have admitting privileges as a prerequisite to practice, so adding that requirement for doctors performing abortions does not seem to be based on a clinical necessity.



« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 00:23:50 by Blackadder1916 »
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2020, 00:42:06 »
Let one of the legislators (Katrina Jackson, D) provide the context, then.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2020, 01:31:06 »
Let one of the legislators (Katrina Jackson, D) provide the context, then.

Then let's put Katrina Jackson into context. While a Democrat, she's a firm pro-life advocate (in fact she frequently calls it "Whole Life" which essentially means she wants to not only restrict abortions but have the state provide support afterwards across a wide spectrum). Louisiana is a state with fairly strong religious constituencies that cross party lines and as such pro-life issues generally cross party lines and have wide-ranging support.

See: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/katrina-jackson-offers-glimpse-whole-life-politics-louisiana

See also: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/katrina-jackson-pro-life-democrat-louisiana

Make no mistake about it. This legislation uses women's health as a cover for what is first and foremost a religious based pro-life agenda. The majority of the USSC saw through the smoke and mirrors and recognized that there was no real medical or scientific basis behind the legislation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/29/louisiana-abortion-law-undue-burdens-no-medical-benefits-column/3280613001/

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2020, 14:19:31 »
Which supports my point: "That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn."

The "if it saves one life" crowd takes a vacation when it suits their political preferences.

That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 397
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2020, 14:52:07 »
Which supports my point: "That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn."

The "if it saves one life" crowd takes a vacation when it suits their political preferences.

It is also interesting that the people who are against all sorts of government mandated protections/interventions suddenly feel the need for the government to make a bunch up to suit their beliefs/restrict others. Both sides are fairly hypocritical here...

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2020, 15:43:32 »
Then let's put Katrina Jackson into context. While a Democrat, she's a firm pro-life advocate (in fact she frequently calls it "Whole Life" which essentially means she wants to not only restrict abortions but have the state provide support afterwards across a wide spectrum). Louisiana is a state with fairly strong religious constituencies that cross party lines and as such pro-life issues generally cross party lines and have wide-ranging support.

See: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/katrina-jackson-offers-glimpse-whole-life-politics-louisiana

See also: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/katrina-jackson-pro-life-democrat-louisiana

Make no mistake about it. This legislation uses women's health as a cover for what is first and foremost a religious based pro-life agenda. The majority of the USSC saw through the smoke and mirrors and recognized that there was no real medical or scientific basis behind the legislation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/29/louisiana-abortion-law-undue-burdens-no-medical-benefits-column/3280613001/

 :cheers:

"A whole life" belief is something I can respect for sure. I still believe that the majority of Canadian would support abortion in the first trimester, likley a slim majority for 2nd trimester and a majority against it in the third trimester, unless certain circumstances are met. The concept that "life" starts outside of the womb is "legally neat" but has no real scientific basis.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2020, 16:23:48 »
"A whole life" belief is something I can respect for sure. I still believe that the majority of Canadian would support abortion in the first trimester, likley a slim majority for 2nd trimester and a majority against it in the third trimester, unless certain circumstances are met. The concept that "life" starts outside of the womb is "legally neat" but has no real scientific basis.

It always has been and always will be a balancing act which is based on numerous scientific/medical, moral, religious and other factors. The question has never solely been "when does biological life begin?" but rather "when does a viable biological element become a human life separate and apart from it's host/mother?" Let's not forget that there are some elements of our society that still believe that any form of artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. The trimester division percentages that you give may be accurate (I really don't know one way or the other) but are nonetheless based on no credible evidence one way or the other except on a more or less emotional basis of whether or not the fetus "looks" more human in its later stages.

"Whole life" is about as close to universal socialism as one can get. I doubt that the "pro life" faction will ever be persuaded to embrace the "whole life" movement except on this one very narrow issue.

Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2020, 20:07:01 »
>Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty, but why is this "interesting"?  Death-row convicts are guilty of something vile, but the unborn are not.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2020, 21:04:13 »
>Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty, but why is this "interesting"?  Death-row convicts are guilty of something vile, but the unborn are not.

"All life is sacred". "Judge not lest you be judged". “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Christianity greatly mitigates against the Old Testament "eye for an eye" principles. Add to that the racial inequality that comes with the application of the death penalty in the US and you have a strong religious/moral argument against the death penalty.

Personally, I am not against the death penalty but then I'm also pro-choice and in both cases I see consistency in my view that there are circumstances where society can morally end a life not yet started or one so worthless it should not be allowed to continue.

On the other hand I consider it hypocritical to argue on the one hand about the sanctity of a life not yet started (especially when we're talking about an early stage cluster of protoplasm) and yet feel that it's quite alright to execute someone. In neither case do you have any idea if the life to follow will have value or not. Whatever line is drawn is an arbitrary one and, undoubtedly, easily rationalized in retrospect.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2020, 21:53:08 »
I am personally uneasy on late term abortions and push comes to shove would vote against them. I also support some Capital punishment. Attempting to keep a prisoner that can no longer be punished and is a constant danger to the inmate makes them a candidate. Also people who have killed multiple times on separate occasions. Both require a very high level of proof before sentencing as there is no ability to reserve it. I think it's unfair on other prisoners and the people responsible to contain them to keep them. We as a society have tendency to stick people either back on the street or into prison and then forget about what happens next.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #43 on: July 01, 2020, 22:15:31 »
I am personally uneasy on late term abortions and push comes to shove would vote against them. I also support some Capital punishment. Attempting to keep a prisoner that can no longer be punished and is a constant danger to the inmate makes them a candidate. Also people who have killed multiple times on separate occasions. Both require a very high level of proof before sentencing as there is no ability to reserve it. I think it's unfair on other prisoners and the people responsible to contain them to keep them. We as a society have tendency to stick people either back on the street or into prison and then forget about what happens next.

Fair enough and I don't criticize people whose opinions are different from mine in degree.

Where I find fault is with people who create black letter law that impacts other peoples' choices because of some dogma pronounced by some priest or sheep herder some three or four thousand years ago.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2020, 23:32:47 »
Secularists in the 20th century certainly did their fair share of Black letter laws on "Family planning" that negatively impacted millions, all based on the rantings of some angry old farts from the 18 & 19th centuries.  8) 

Speaking of which: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22788&utm_term=Editors%20Picks%20OC&?tpcc=22788

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2020, 23:47:15 »
Secularists in the 20th century certainly did their fair share of Black letter laws on "Family planning" that negatively impacted millions, all based on the rantings of some angry old farts from the 18 & 19th centuries.  8) 

Speaking of which: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22788&utm_term=Editors%20Picks%20OC&?tpcc=22788

Didn't say they had a monopoly. There's a lot of stupid to go around.



 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 214
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2020, 12:50:37 »
 One of the things that always surprises me, regardless of how well my background prepares me to predict the occurance of such things, is just how frequently otherwise logical laws end up being given the same immutable elements one sees in religious dogma. If the law is good and just (like for example, those related to murder), by all means let them have such a status, but if the law is one which is temporally relevant as opposed to being derived from universal truth, such as laws related to culturally sensitive issues, there is both tremendous risk and tremendous benefit.

I don't envy the difficult job the SC Judges have in making those risk/benefit evaluations for the interpretation of the laws, simply because history does not have 'sides' - only the truth.