|
Your problem is in assuming "comes to some legitimate end" means anything. All it means is "the legislature could conceivably have had a reason to do this." It can be an incredibly poo poo reason, but any reason will do.* *statement not valid around Anthony Kennedy when talking about gay rights.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Good point. Assuming Garland is eventually and begrudgingly confirmed to the SCOTUS and there are no major upsets in the composition of the court in the next fistful of years, the question stands: Is there a foreseeable way forwards to stopping bathroom bills (and possibly slowing RFRA bills) through a SCOTUS expansion of suspect classification or some other method? Or more importantly: Is there no forseeable way forwards judicially with that kind of scope? Just trying to cling to some hope when the collective governmental apparatus seems determined to either ratfuck civil rights and basic human decency or ignore said ratfucking on such a massive scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
It sounds like North Carolina state law is saying that North Carolina local law cannot regulate SUBJECT XXXXXX (be it to pass ordinances prohibiting certain practices or whatever). Which is a matter of state law, and it would ultimately (if it ever got to that point) be for the North Carolina Supreme Court to decide whether the state General Assembly can restrict localities' powers in such a manner under how the governmental system of North Carolina operates. Virginia had a similar case about 10 or so years ago regarding whether Virginia localities had the power to pass ordinances that related to same-sex partnerships (or marriage or something along those lines; the details are fuzzy) (spoiler: they don't). That state-law issue does not implicate federal constitutional law in the slightest--that is, nobody will argue the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based upon XXXXXX, and therefore localities should be able to pass ordinances relating to XXXXXX. Regardless of what ordinances are or are not passed at the local level, however, the U.S. Constitution and federal law is still operative. So if the local ordinances were just trying to reinforce federal law, there is no substantive loss--though it's an optics loss, which may translate into less enforcement on the ground if people don't know their rights. idk
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:That isn't the specific language, no, but that is the header of the relevant sections, yes. I would ask if you could point me to the language then? Because those aren't headers, they're provisions added to the statutes by HB2. Is that not what passed? Trying to understand here. quote:Not one that outweighs the interest in protecting citizens from well cited and endemic violence using a bathroom that does not conform to their gender presentation, no. Especially when nationwide experts dedicated to protecting people from sexual assault agree that the state is acting to protect people from an issue that does not exist. The case you're talking about is one in which a sex offender who is already not protected against the law does an unlawful thing that will continue to be against the law if people with vaginas are allowed into "men's rooms" etc. I'm not arguing merits here, I think the laws are dumb and that trans people should be treated like normal people. I just saying, its pretty easy to make a claim that protecting children from the threat of sexual molestation is a pretty easy to make argument for important government interest to pass intermediate scrutiny. also yea, any opinion involving gay rights and Kennedy is jst a cluster fucker EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:It sounds like North Carolina state law is saying that North Carolina local law cannot regulate SUBJECT XXXXXX (be it to pass ordinances prohibiting certain practices or whatever). The Virginia amendment to the state constitution was already declared unconstitutional by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, so if anyone can find standing to challenge the NC law and get a District Court to overturn it, I would be surprised if it were upheld. That amendment was specific to the benefits afforded to married couples by other law, and there's plenty of that at both state and federal levels. I'm not sure what equivalent law there is for bathrooms. Qtotonibudinibudet fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
You and I are talking about totally different things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I would ask if you could point me to the language then? Because those aren't headers, they're provisions added to the statutes by HB2. Is that not what passed? Trying to understand here. I misspoke. I'm not sure what your underlying point here is though - either way the statement I was backing up there was that this bill rolled back all law in North Carolina related to discrimination in public accommodations, goods and services, etc. that aren't NC or federal law. True, there are some spheres this bill doesn't touch, but employment (and public accommodation) is a massive and overriding pillar of the dramatic majority of people's lives. It's the state's prerogative to reserve the right to be the sole legislator on the matter in its domain, but it undermines the claims of concern for equality and consistency to do this in the way it's been done and with the particular language used, especially in the absence of overarching state legislation to replace the ordinance or any evidence of the harms of the ordinance in question. Any interest is counterbalanced by the compelling interest in protecting trans* children and people from the threat of sexual molestation and outright murderous violence, an interest that is backed up by evidence that such events actually occur. Regardless of personal feelings, it's easy to make a claim that purple people eaters fly down from outer space and eat people who miscegenate, just as it's easy to make the 'protect our children' claim or any other claim. The level of scrutiny displayed has been "Oh, men in women's locker rooms, sounds scary" and "That hypothetical scares me, so I'm going to ignore that it's dramatically divergent from reality". It's not a claim that is supported in any factual way. No one is arguing those things here - and the question still stands: Will the claim that these bills protect children/people/women from a threat large enough to necessitate limiting the rights and endangering the lives of trans* people stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny? Sounds like people are saying yes: as long as the claim of interest has a thin veneer of good intent will suffice, no matter what merits of that claim are or aren't. Do y'all think the probable SCOTUS makeup by the time a challenge to all the recent bills go through would be likely to increase the scrutiny required for LGBT minorities? In the case that the US suspect classifications are expanded, I ask the first question again. I know that's a lot of hypothetical questioning, but I'm looking for some insight into trends and precedent here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:Again, I might be dramatically misconstruing the details here being both not-a-lawyer and a-newer-SCOTUS-follower, but it seems to me that the precedent here is that a law concerning something like sexual orientation or gender identity shall be upheld if it a) does not burden a fundamental right, b) does not target a suspect class, and c) comes to some legitimate end. The purported legitimate end of bathroom bills is to protect people (women and girls) from sexual predators, in a way that the existing laws covering sexual assault are not equipped to do... somehow. To me, the layperson, that seems like a perfectly valid angle of attack, albeit perhaps not the most satisfying. What you quote there is called the "rational basis" test, which is what's used when there's not a suspect class. In practice, it means as long as you can come up with any rationale how it gets you any closer to any legitimate end, it's ok - in other words it's almost impossible to fail. Except when it comes to gay rights, where Kennedy has found violations of the rational basis test (the only violations ever found of the rational basis test, I think). It is widely believed (including by me) that Kennedy has actually been treating gays as a suspect class but has just refused to admit it. The best explanation is that he didn't want to get forced into a gay rights decision before he thought he could make it stick, like nationwide gay marriage. If another case gets to the court now though I suspect he'd finally get around to ruling gays are a suspect class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:I misspoke. I'm not sure what your underlying point here is though - either way the statement I was backing up there was that this bill rolled back all law in North Carolina related to discrimination in public accommodations, goods and services, etc. that aren't NC or federal law. True, there are some spheres this bill doesn't touch, but employment (and public accommodation) is a massive and overriding pillar of the dramatic majority of people's lives. It's the state's prerogative to reserve the right to be the sole legislator on the matter in its domain, but it undermines the claims of concern for equality and consistency to do this in the way it's been done and with the particular language used, especially in the absence of overarching state legislation to replace the ordinance or any evidence of the harms of the ordinance in question. You originally said it banned all discrimination bills. People were surprised. I asked. It doesn't ban them all, just in two specific categories (as broad as they may be) And yea, I don't think you really know how the different levels of scrutiny work. There 3/4 different levels of scrutiny. We don't know which one trans rights would be. It could be rationale basis, in which any state interest, even one the court makes up could be. it could be intermediary, in which its a important state interest weighed against how broad/narrow the bill is. Or its strict scrutiny, and it has to be a compelling state interest narrowly tailored. There isn't a standard for gay rights, because Kennedy went with dignity instead. And sex/gender rights like Craig and Virginia Miltiary Institute, which governed equal protection and sex is some weird quasi intermediary/strict scrutiny bastard of O'Connor
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
I mean, I clarified exactly what I was saying in my second post. I took 'all, surely not' to mean 'all ordinances or just some specific ones related to lgbt people' , and the answer to that is 'yes, all, including all classes, even theoretically veterans' in the scope I decsscribe in that same post. But okay. I get that there is no explict jurisprudence that requires a high standard, that was the entire point of my line of questioning regarding the claims being examined with even a slightly critical eye an what that would mean for classification\civil rights moving forwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Veterans aren't a class. Hope this finds you well
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:20
|
|
CaPensiPraxis, jurisprudence is all that matters. EwokEntourage posted:Veterans aren't a class. They are a class, technically- just not one that gets protection under this analysis, to my knowledge.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Any grouping of people according to an attribute is a class(ification). Only a select few groupings of people according to an attribute are suspect class(ifications). Felons are a class. Veterans are a class. 6(c) covered federal employees are a class. You can do things to those classes that you don't do to the rest of the population if there is a rational basis for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Well, we're presumably talking about equal protection, so just imagine I wrote protected class or discrete and insular minority or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Oh my god even just reading transcripts of judges having to pretend to take this pious bullshit seriously like it's anything other than controlling their employees' vaginas is so annoying. We don't want to keep women from getting birth control, it's just against our religion to provide it, can't you give it to them through a separate program? Okay tell us who your insurance company is and we'll have them provide it through a separate program. No we don't want to tell you that bwuh -- why the hell not?! Because then the women will get birth control!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh my god even just reading transcripts of judges having to pretend to take this pious bullshit seriously like it's anything other than controlling their employees' vaginas is so annoying. Not empty quoting. For gently caress's sake, this is a  I don't really want to know about, but anyway; why isn't the employee's religious permissiveness of contraception respected, or even an issue here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Sotomayor got in a good dig about that when counsel tried to argue that the government didn't even know how many women wanted the coverage so they hadn't even proven there was an interest. She replied "oh great let's assume all the employees won't take it because they have the same religious objections then you'll never have to provide it so there's no case, right?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sotomayor got in a good dig about that when counsel tried to argue that the government didn't even know how many women wanted the coverage so they hadn't even proven there was an interest. She replied "oh great let's assume all the employees won't take it because they have the same religious objections then you'll never have to provide it so there's no case, right?"  Goddamn. SCALIA kicking the bucket is really leading to some nice banter. Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Not empty quoting. The idea, In theory I think, is that your practice of religion can't force someone else to do something, especially something against their religion. So in this case, your practice of religion - birth control being okay with you / your religion - can't force people to violate their religious beliefs against contraceptives. The idea itself is valid - can't force your beliefs on someone, can't force someone to practice your religion. It's just stupid as poo poo when applied to the idea of birth control or medical coverage. If this was about J Wits denying coverage for blood transfusions, and not ecky ecky safe sex, I don't think they're be all question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sotomayor got in a good dig about that when counsel tried to argue that the government didn't even know how many women wanted the coverage so they hadn't even proven there was an interest. She replied "oh great let's assume all the employees won't take it because they have the same religious objections then you'll never have to provide it so there's no case, right?" Sotomayor continues to be the best. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:Sotomayor continues to be the best. Ruth's still my fav, but Sonia seems like she'll be a fine successor for the snark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
I wish health insurance was treated like all compensation: it's the property of the employee. If you choose to pay your workers partly in healthcare, it needs to be real health insurance not slut-shame-scrip. I mean I know this court would never accept such an interpretation since they're all about blowjobs for business but has anyone ever tried to argue that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Try to argue that and next thing you know birth control will be banned because forcing employers to give money to employees that might then be used for the purchase of birth control is infringing on their religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Considering they aren't really refusing to "pay" for birth control but just not allowing their employees to get access to the bargained price for birth control and forcing them to pay an out of network price they can't afford they are already making that argument, although in a way that allows them plausible deniability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
quote:I get that there is no explict jurisprudence that requires a high standard, that was the entire point of my line of questioning regarding the claims being examined with even a slightly critical eye an what that would mean for classification\civil rights moving forwards. I know you probably find me wildly unhelpful, so here are some remarks from a law review article that I hope answers some of your questions: quote:D. Transgender Discrimination Claims Under Equal Protection Glenn v Brumby decision quote:In finding the defendant's reasons were not substantially related to an important government interest, Judge Story held the decision to terminate Ms. Glenn violated her rights under the Equal Protection *1332 Clause, and granted her motion for summary judgment.109 In so doing, and without saying as much, the Glenn v. Brumby decision followed a logical step by step process: (1) Price Waterhouse created a cause of action for nonconformity to sex stereotypes under Title VII based on sex,110 (2) the application of the sex stereotype theory has been extended to claims brought by transsexuals under Title VII,111 and (3) the elements of a Title VII claim are the same as an Equal Protection claim brought under § 1983.112 Therefore, a sex stereotyping claim brought by a transsexual employee is a claim based on sex that requires the government interest to survive a heightened intermediate scrutiny, rather than a rational basis test. A different court opinion quote:However, despite all of these attempts to include sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII, as the court in Oiler v. Winn-Dixie pointed out, no attempts have been made by Congress to ban discrimination based on sexual or gender identity.118 The court considered Congress' failure to clearly include sexual orientation and identity in the definition of “based on sex” to be ample indication that it did not intend those classes to be included in the protection, especially considering Congress' awareness of courts' twenty-year struggle over the issue.119 In considering whether the plaintiff in Oiler v. Winn-Dixie could find relief under a Price Waterhouse sex stereotyping theory, the court stated that transgenderedness was a “matter of a person of one sex assuming the role of a person of the *1334 opposite sex,” versus “exhibiting characteristics associated with the opposite sex,” and found that claim failed as well.120 I think a liberal court would adopt intermediate scrutiny, and if followed the sex cases like Virginia Military Institute, it'd have to be an "exceedingly persuasive justification" which I don't think a liberal court would find in bathroom laws, depending on what evidence they see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jerry-brown-tea-party-threatens-primary-challenger Here come the primary threats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jerry-brown-tea-party-threatens-primary-challenger 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jerry-brown-tea-party-threatens-primary-challenger Yes... yes eat yourselves you fuckers. Primary your sitting senators and make people have to pick between a Dem and a full on Thunderdome-grade right winger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes... yes eat yourselves you fuckers. Primary your sitting senators and make people have to pick between a Dem and a full on Thunderdome-grade right winger. It's Kansas, they'd pick the Thunderdome-grade right winger in a heart beat. They reelected Brownback after he set them on pace for a state wide Thunderdome in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
And Kansas already has a long (recent) history of successful primary challenges to more moderate Republicans in the state legislature. The RINO hunting is real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/clarencethomas/status/714499499721433088
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Is he going to pull a Luttig?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Is he going to pull a Luttig? It's not Clarence Thomas dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It's not Clarence Thomas dude Was that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Whatever it said, it's gone now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Fake Clarence Thomas Twitter asks if there are any job openings at Boeing. Ha ha ha I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sotomayor got in a good dig about that when counsel tried to argue that the government didn't even know how many women wanted the coverage so they hadn't even proven there was an interest. She replied "oh great let's assume all the employees won't take it because they have the same religious objections then you'll never have to provide it so there's no case, right?" I hope that she becomes more public, she has a sharp wit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Fake Clarence Thomas Twitter asks if there are any job openings at Boeing. Ha ha ha I guess? I would be more than happy to turn aside my aversion to corruption if it gets Thomas out of a position of significant authority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/714815186289483776
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
The lower court decision was for the Unions, right? Thank you, Justice Scalia. You did the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:08
|
|
