|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That strikes me as a stretch, honestly. It doesn't talk about gender norms or behavior; it's all about a few specific classes of discrimination that were in the public discussion heavily at the time. It was about things like specifically refusing to hire women at all or paying them less because they're women. A company that didn't give a crap what you were so long as you weren't gay isn't doing any gender discrimination at all. Think about it this way. Is discrimination again miscegenation discrimination on the basis of race, or is it just discrimination against misceginizers? After all, I might not give a crap what race you are so long as you don't misceginize.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Stickman posted:Think about it this way. Is discrimination again miscegenation discrimination on the basis of race, or is it just discrimination against misceginizers? After all, I might not give a crap what race you are so long as you don't misceginize. This was a key concept in the oral arguments this week, and it's actually kind of difficult to argue against. However, I think Sotomayor and Ginsburg raising the fact that sex discrimination for sexual harassment was later read into Title 7 is one of the better arguments. That puts the onus on the defense in these cases to demonstrate why their objection to reading Title 7 as protecting trans or gay people doesn't also overturn decades of settled law on sexual harassment. The arguments by the defense in these cases stating that the discrimination is actually one step removed so therefore outside the bounds of the text of the law are very weak. I don't think this was ever brought up so explicitly, but sexual orientation discrimination and other kinds of discrimination necessarily follow the "but for" rule when it comes to the class in question. The concepts themselves are defined in those terms. Being gay is fundamentally linked to the sex assigned at birth. Whether or not you're engaged in marrying outside your race or religion is inherently linked to your race or religion. You can try to do sleight of hand to claim some kind of separation, but that's meaningless in practice. I was really frustrated with the oral argument on this. There was a lot of "well both sides have their way of looking at it, and it's all so close..." going on, and I really reject that thinking. I know the advocates know they have to convince a 5-4 Republican majority on these points, but it just felt like low-hanging fruit. There isn't a both sides to this. One side makes logical sense and jives with the text of the law as written and the concepts themselves. The other side is just making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I was really frustrated with the oral argument on this. There was a lot of "well both sides have their way of looking at it, and it's all so close..." going on, and I really reject that thinking. I know the advocates know they have to convince a 5-4 Republican majority on these points, but it just felt like low-hanging fruit. There isn't a both sides to this. One side makes logical sense and jives with the text of the law as written and the concepts themselves. The other side is just making poo poo up. yeah fundamentally it's really hard for it to simultaneously be true that (1) I am forbidden from discriminating against a woman for being 'not feminine enough', as it is impermissible gender stereotyping (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins); and also (2) I am permitted to use that same failure-to-meet-gender-stereotypes to infer that she is a lesbian and discriminate against her for this reason instead the only way to make the doctrine make sense and still allow you to discriminate against gays is to go back and overrule all the gender stereotyping jurisprudence that's like 20-30 years old
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:No. And don’t listen to tweets from people unaware that Bush v Gore didn’t change the outcome of the election, just the timetable. That's not his point. The court in Bush v Gore *thought# they were stealing an election, and did it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not his point. The court in Bush v Gore *thought# they were stealing an election, and did it anyway. Repubz gonna repub. Seriously that single decision helped cement permanent Republican rule for the next 20 years or more so, with a brief blip of 2008-2010-- with 2010 being so successful for Repubs that this country will most likely have minority rule by them until they are able to cause such a Constitutional crisis that they get those re-writes cement permanent apartheid to turn this place into an even shittier combination of Russia and China that they all seem to be jerking off to the idea of. They will have no problem doing it again in another 5-4. That was the whole reason for denying Obama another seat and pushing through vaguely 100% conservative loyalist Gorsuch and then insane 1000000% masturbating to being the best loyalist ever Beerboi jeeves fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Repubz gonna repub. There will never be a Constitutional rewrite that is not favorable to the right wing without an earth-shattering political shift that would all but certainly result in widespread violence from the increasingly insane fascist fringe. The number of low population deep red states protects the GOP the same way it provides them a huge advantage in the Senate. Like if the stars align and Trump actually gets impeached and the MAGA CHUDs vote against Republicans out of spite next year then we MIGHT get close to the numbers but the Dems would still lack the political will unless the entire leadership gets ousted and replaced, which needs to happen regardless but isn't too likely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah fundamentally it's really hard for it to simultaneously be true that
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:don’t listen to tweets from people Fixed your post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
This seems bad... https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1185268299862556674
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:This seems bad... Wouldn't saying the CFPB is too independent of the executive also destroy the Federal Reserve as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
This however seems good! https://twitter.com/srl/status/1185298980013522944
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:This seems bad... i think southpaw probably got the wrong idea here https://twitter.com/deepakguptalaw/status/1185280777619234818 Kloaked00 posted:This however seems good! unfortunately it's really not, that holding extends the injunction but only for the plaintiffs - that is, the specific dozen people named here, not the class of disenfranchised voters as a whole. it's maybe a sign they'll have a favorable outcome from this judge, but unfortunately the 11th circuit is nuts and unlikely to uphold any favorable outcome imo that said, if we actually managed to end up with the "genuinely unable to pay" standard here, it'd be incredibly good for us. it'd depend on how it's defined, but i assume it will be similar to qualifying for civil indigent status here (and literally every person i've ever met who would want reenfranchisement qualifies for CIS). eke out fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
So is the DoJ in charge of defending the constitutionality of the CFPB? Because that seems like it wouldn’t be great...
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
eke out posted:i think southpaw probably got the wrong idea here As he points out, striking down all of Dodd-Frank for a single clause's mistake would be ludicrous. However, that just raises the question of why they need everyone to argue it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Stickman posted:So is the DoJ in charge of defending the constitutionality of the CFPB? Because that seems like it wouldn’t be great... Yes, it's the Solicitor General and DOJ as the respondent. And yes, they have terrible opinions. Petitioner is the debt scam person who wants a ruling that the CFPB can't make them stop doing scummy stuff https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/116040/20190917144324154_19-7%20Seila%20Law.pdf This link is CFPB/DOJ's response, and an excerpt where they opine on why they are unconstitutional, emphasis mine. quote:Petitioner contends (Pet. 18-25)that the structure of the Bureau, including the for-cause restriction on the removal of its single director, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The United States previously informed this Court that it has also concluded the statutory restriction on the President’s authority to remove the Director violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, and that the question would warrant this Court’s review in an appropriate case. See Gov’t Br. in Opp., State Nat’l Bank of Big Spring v. Mnuchin (No. 18-307). The Director of the Bureau has since reached the same conclusion. This case presents a suitable vehicle for the Court’s review of the question.The government thus agrees with petitioner that certiorari is warranted. The Director is taking the position that the law granting her her powers is unconstitutional, because she does not believe in the agency's mission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Is there any non-bullshit basis for "creating a Bureau whose leadership can't be fired by the POTUS on a whim" is Unconstitutional? In other "burn them all and salt the earth news" Roberts and co appear to have dropped any pretense of caring about fair elections: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/supreme-court-vacates-ruling-finding-michigan-unconstitutionally-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/ Can't wait to see the 2020 census maps result in every GOP-held state getting gerrymandered to give them a permanent supermajority. No amount of bad poo poo could happen to that man that would ever make me feel an ounce of pity for him or the other conservative justices. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Oct 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Can't wait to see the 2020 census maps result in every GOP-held state getting gerrymandered to give them a permanent supermajority. Given the likely result of next year's elections, there's a decent chance that the Dems end up banishing the GOP into gerrymander hell for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Is there any non-bullshit basis for "creating a Bureau whose leadership can't be fired by the POTUS on a whim" is Unconstitutional? I think the standard answer is the first sentence of Article II, Section 1: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Obviously there's disagreement as to how far this principle should be taken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I think the standard answer is the first sentence of Article II, Section 1: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Obviously there's disagreement as to how far this principle should be taken. The Federal Reserve has lasted independent of the President since 1913 though, and the first 20 years of that had very conservative courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1187120842536374275?s=21 So I assume that this means the DOJ is not defending CFPB?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Has the judicial system ever considered whether any legislation that regulates for the sake of global climate change, such as regulating intrastate zoning policy, should be considered interstate commerce
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Has the judicial system ever considered whether any legislation that regulates for the sake of global climate change, such as regulating intrastate zoning policy, should be considered interstate commerce Well if you look at the historical record, you see that the Framers clearly didn’t intend for the federal government to deal with climate change, and therefore
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
The racist, rapist, extremely wealthy, slaving aristocrats that set up our government to interfere with other people but not them wouldn't want to fix problems for those people. Therefore, we rule that driving the bus off a cliff is constitutionally valid and essentially required
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1187120842536374275?s=21 Yea the republicans want to kill it so their plan is to just not defend it. The CFPB’s own position currently is that the CFPB is unconstitutional and should be destroyed. It’s all very stupid Paul Clement was solicitor general for the W administration. He’s also probably one of the best Supreme Court litigators in America currently. I don’t know how he feels about the CFPB but I know how he feels about his reputation so I doubt he tries to throw the case or anything like that
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Yea the republicans want to kill it so their plan is to just not defend it. The CFPB’s own position currently is that the CFPB is unconstitutional and should be destroyed. It’s all very stupid Yeah, this is a good appointment. Clement is one of the few people I'd trust to argue effectively for something he doesn't agree with, high school debate style.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1194643355797508097
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Well if there is one thing that will guarantee* 0 Republican votes to convinct in the Senate, it's RBG's seat opening up  *Not that there was a chance anyways
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised Putin has not just assassinated the liberal justices. Our system is already so broken due to the Senate that it seems a very easy thing to do. Even if Democrats attempt to filibuster any new somehow-worse-than-Beerboi 18 year old new justice, the simple majority to pass + Pence's vote means they can have their way. And even if somehow the process gets bogged down, it would still be a smaller court with even more of a Republican advantage. It's almost as if running a country using a pretty outdated set of rules written 240 years ago isn't such a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
President Pence can sign off on a Heritage Foundation pick just as easily as Trump, though (probably more easily!) There's maybe one Republican who would conceivably be opposed to ramming through a SCOTUS nominee on January 19th, probably none.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
RBG only has to hang on until January 1st. Then it'll be an election year so any SC nomination will have to be decided by the elec...hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Christ this makes me nervous as an oncologist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
If the worst happens to RGB I'd fully support her family just spending a year+ saying RGB is refusing all visitors because of her health and no she's not resigning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the worst happens to RGB I'd fully support her family just spending a year+ saying RGB is refusing all visitors because of her health and no she's not resigning. I still kinda suspect they did this for McCain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Even if Democrats attempt to filibuster any new somehow-worse-than-Beerboi 18 year old new justice, the simple majority to pass + Pence's vote means they can have their way. And even if somehow the process gets bogged down, it would still be a smaller court with even more of a Republican advantage. Don't worry, it won't come to that. Republicans removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees in under an hour when Neil Gorsuch was up for confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:RBG only has to hang on until January 1st. Then it'll be an election year so any SC nomination will have to be decided by the elec...hahahahaha McConnell straight-up said they'd vote to confirm in that situation. Like, no hesitation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Don't worry, it won't come to that. Republicans removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees in under an hour when Neil Gorsuch was up for confirmation. fukken laffff Mod edit: nope (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
jeeves posted:fukken laffff Yeah there certainly wouldn't be any response to this air-tight plan you came up with. Are you Scooter Libby? Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Knock knock knockin' on Lowtax's door.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Clearly you're the first person to ever think of that, which is why the justices take no security precautions whatsoever at any time
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the worst happens to RGB I'd fully support her family just spending a year+ saying RGB is refusing all visitors because of her health and no she's not resigning. I feel like they'd actually impeach her at that point
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 19:52
|
|
