Supreme court rules for trans-gender rights
DiscussãoPro and Con
Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.
1kiparsky
The Supreme Court ruled that "discrimination on the basis of sex" includes discrimination against trans-gendered folks.
I don't know what the smart people think, but my first thought when I read the majority list was that Gorsuch and Roberts are telling Trump (or, more realistically, Trump's handlers) to step back. And then I wondered, how much of this is signaling for November? Is this a warning not to expect any special help from that corner, that there isn't an O'Connor on this court?
In any case, a good ruling for Americans (less good for the anti-American brigade, but I'm sure they'll chime in) and a nice one to get in June of all months.
I don't know what the smart people think, but my first thought when I read the majority list was that Gorsuch and Roberts are telling Trump (or, more realistically, Trump's handlers) to step back. And then I wondered, how much of this is signaling for November? Is this a warning not to expect any special help from that corner, that there isn't an O'Connor on this court?
In any case, a good ruling for Americans (less good for the anti-American brigade, but I'm sure they'll chime in) and a nice one to get in June of all months.
22wonderY
The dissenters:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the majority had abandoned its judicial role.
“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Justice Alito wrote. “The document that the court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he wrote. “
…
The common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964, Justice Alito wrote, was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, he wrote, it could pass a new law.
“Discrimination ‘because of sex’ was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status” in 1964, he wrote. “Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular fashion with the societal norms of the day.”
...
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's other appointment to the court, issued a separate dissent making a point about statutory interpretation. “Courts must follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning,” he wrote, adding that the ordinary meaning of “because of sex” does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Seneca Falls was not Stonewall,” he wrote. “The women’s rights movement was not (and is not) the gay rights movement, although many people obviously support or participate in both. So to think that sexual orientation discrimination is just a form of sex discrimination is not just a mistake of language and psychology, but also a mistake of history and sociology.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the majority had abandoned its judicial role.
“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Justice Alito wrote. “The document that the court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he wrote. “
…
The common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964, Justice Alito wrote, was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, he wrote, it could pass a new law.
“Discrimination ‘because of sex’ was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status” in 1964, he wrote. “Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular fashion with the societal norms of the day.”
...
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's other appointment to the court, issued a separate dissent making a point about statutory interpretation. “Courts must follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning,” he wrote, adding that the ordinary meaning of “because of sex” does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Seneca Falls was not Stonewall,” he wrote. “The women’s rights movement was not (and is not) the gay rights movement, although many people obviously support or participate in both. So to think that sexual orientation discrimination is just a form of sex discrimination is not just a mistake of language and psychology, but also a mistake of history and sociology.”
42wonderY
And the same day my grandson got his first puberty blocker shot. He's been a he since his third birthday. Hard to argue with that.
5Matke
And in other good news from SCOTUS, the court refused to hear arguments to broaden gun rights, and refused to hear the government’s arguments against sanctuary cities.
A good day in the court.
A good day in the court.
6Molly3028
Congressional GOP reps should be thanking their lucky stars. The
Supremes did them and the country a big favor by doing what the
reps could/would never have been able to do because of the
hang ups of their voting base and wingnut radio and TV hosts.
Supremes did them and the country a big favor by doing what the
reps could/would never have been able to do because of the
hang ups of their voting base and wingnut radio and TV hosts.
7timspalding
>6 Molly3028:
I think this is exactly right. Much like same-sex marriage, this take a difficult, alienating, divisive issue for Republicans off the table. The same applies to churches. I suspect we'll see a number of cases about the "ministerial exemption," but, at least for all but the true ultras, it removes a constant irritant and obstacle. For Catholic schools in particular the whole topic had become a trap. They couldn't retreat on firing teachers—generally when they got officially married—because they'd look weak and morally inconsistent to the right-wing parents who think Catholicism means constant culture war, but every firing led to bad press, student protests and other, normal parents abandoning the school.
I think this is exactly right. Much like same-sex marriage, this take a difficult, alienating, divisive issue for Republicans off the table. The same applies to churches. I suspect we'll see a number of cases about the "ministerial exemption," but, at least for all but the true ultras, it removes a constant irritant and obstacle. For Catholic schools in particular the whole topic had become a trap. They couldn't retreat on firing teachers—generally when they got officially married—because they'd look weak and morally inconsistent to the right-wing parents who think Catholicism means constant culture war, but every firing led to bad press, student protests and other, normal parents abandoning the school.
8margd
Eric Feigl-Ding (epidemiologist) @DrEricDing | 10:05 AM · Mar 23, 2023:
2) many dark things going on in Florida these days… forget hormone therapies for cancer and other illnesses if this Florida bill passes… {margd-"hormone antagonistic therapies" are used to shrink fibroids prior to surgery, to delay puberty so that "little people" can maximize their growth potential, etc.}
INSANITY—a complete ban in Florida proposed on health insurance coverage against all “gender clinical interventions”—which includes banning birth control, hormone treatment for menopause, for breast cancer, anti-androgen treatments for prostate cancer, for https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1421/amendment/695881/pdf
Highlighted excerpt ( https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1638665128135499776/photo/1 )
2) many dark things going on in Florida these days… forget hormone therapies for cancer and other illnesses if this Florida bill passes… {margd-"hormone antagonistic therapies" are used to shrink fibroids prior to surgery, to delay puberty so that "little people" can maximize their growth potential, etc.}
INSANITY—a complete ban in Florida proposed on health insurance coverage against all “gender clinical interventions”—which includes banning birth control, hormone treatment for menopause, for breast cancer, anti-androgen treatments for prostate cancer, for https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2023/1421/amendment/695881/pdf
Highlighted excerpt ( https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1638665128135499776/photo/1 )
