Orange Man Stacks the Supreme Court

[G-Man]

Which upheld our nations foundational principles of fairness and equal opportunity, ruling that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status - a landmark victory for the LGBQT+ community and supporters.

[Robert]

Yea I wonder if the idea will sink in, I wonder if they will see the advanatages to a fair, leagal and just system.

[Oss]

What is interesting to me is what both of Trump's additions to the court had to say

Read the decisions and dissents online, dont trust what I or anyone else has to say about it before you make up your mind

[Valkorado]

 . More laws do not mean more justice! 

We have existing laws that forbid harassment and discrimination based upon race, color, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, disability, sex, gender, expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

America doesn't need LGBTQ EEO mandates and hiring quotas in my opinion.

[Robert]

. More laws do not mean more justice! 

America doesn't need LGBTQ EEO mandates and hiring quotas in my opinion.

That is the real issue, with the laws they have pushed for it gives them a protected class above everyone else.

[Robert]

What is interesting to me is what both of Trump's additions to the court had to say

Read the decisions and dissents online, dont trust what I or anyone else has to say about it before you make up your mind

Got link?

[Moonshot_1]

Can't say I've read anything about this in depth but from what I've gathered...

I agree with Thomas and Alito's dissent opinion. I think I agreed with it before I read it in the thought that the affirmative decision in effect legislated from the bench.

This revolved around the word "sex" in this particular law. The word "sex" was intended to define a man vs. a woman in the workplace. An obvious demonstrative concept.

To get to the affirmative decision, the word "sex" had to be redefined. I would consider this outside of the judiciary's scope.

This should be kicked back to the legislature to define and amend the law to seek the accommodation for the lbgtq folks.

Was there any exceptions made in the affirmative decision that would prohibit pedophiles, sexual predators, rapist, and general sexual perverts from enjoying these legal protections?

My initial perspective on that is they left the definition really open ended. That is why this needs to be resolved legislatively.   

[Valkorado]

Was there any exceptions made in the affirmative decision that would prohibit pedophiles, sexual predators, rapist, and general sexual perverts from enjoying these legal protections?

I think most of these criminals are rightfully tracked closely and their employment, residential and social opportunities are limited at best.   Pedophiles don't generally just stop being pedophiles - - even after incarceration and "treatment".

That said, in this day and age I could envision pedophiles and rapists jumping on the discrimination bandwagon.  It seems to be the vogue thing to do nowadays.

[f6gal]

Which upheld our nations foundational principles of fairness and equal opportunity, ruling that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status - a landmark victory for the LGBQT+ community and supporters.

If the LGBTQ community recognizes the big victory, it's not what they're talking about.  Instead, they are complaining about the dissenters (the 3 that voted no).
  
This is just more blurring of the separation of powers identified in the constitution.  The supreme court is not supposed to legislate from the bench. Their role is to interpret and rule on current law and the intent of the law when written. In this case, the intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in question. The "sex" provision in that legislation refers to sex as in gender.  If LGBTQ needs to be included it the legislation, it's up to Congress to amend the Act as such.

Judge Alito, regarding intent of the law: “If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time."

Judge Kavanaugh, regarding legislating from the bench, “... when this court usurps the role of Congress, as it does today, the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical about the oft-repeated aspiration that judges base their decisions on law rather than on personal preference.”

[Serk]

https://babylonbee.com/news/oh-no-the-supreme-court-building-just-started-sliding-down-a-slippery-slope-at-an-incredible-rate

[Rams]

 The supreme court is not supposed to legislate from the bench. Their role is to interpret and rule on current law and the intent of the law when written.
……………………...
Judge Kavanaugh, regarding legislating from the bench, “... when this court usurps the role of Congress, as it does today, the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical about the oft-repeated aspiration that judges base their decisions on law rather than on personal preference.”

Precisely.   

[Jess from VA]

I'm in agreement with Moonshot and F6Gal.

The court expanded the definition of sex (to orientation) to reach the merits under existing law.

The dissenters had it right.

However, it is entirely likely that Congress would do this anyway, given the chance (or the motivation), but it was their job, not the Court's.

So if you're going to fire someone, don't say it's because they're gay, say it's because they suck (wait, what?)   

[scooperhsd]

I'm in agreement with Moonshot and F6Gal.

The court expanded the definition of sex (to orientation) to reach the merits under existing law.

The dissenters had it right.

However, it is entirely likely that Congress would do this anyway, given the chance (or the motivation), but it was their job, not the Court's.

So if you're going to fire someone, don't say it's because they're gay, say it's because they suck (wait, what?)   

No  - they got fired for not performing the duties of the job adequately (backed up with documentation).
Of course, in a Work at will State (NC for one example) - you don't need any reason.

[G-Man]

That awful evil orange bad man stacked the court and he still lost two biggies in a row.

(It couldn't be because he put a couple of really good ones in there who may not be afraid to do what's constitutional in this day and age, right?)