Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

How is this not 9-0? How is it 2020 before this ruling even exists?

 

we are just failing in every conceivable way 


Nah man, this is good. Evangelicals even at their worst can’t get a stacked conservative court to sign on to their bigotry. 
 

I feel better about our democracy today.

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

That's a good way to look at it. Thanks


This is a Roe v Wade level of loss for Christian bigots in this country. And it was delivered by Neil Gorsuch. 
 

Evangelicals are in meltdown mode online right now. Look at this clown:

 

 

 

 

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s fair to assume that Roberts only sided with the majority because of Gorsuch. By siding with the majority, he got to assign a libertarian the job of writing the majority opinion, since he’s the senior most member of the majority side. Otherwise, it would have been RBG writing this ruling, and it would have read very differently than what Gorsuch said. Had Gorsuch sided with the conservatives, this is a 5-4 ruling in favor of LGBTQ workplace discrimination.
 

This is 100% Trump’s first judicial pick “betraying” a core legislative and judicial demand of the religious bigots. Lots and lots of social conservatives realizing that they have once again been sold out at the altar of right wing libertarianism LOL.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today is a major L for conservatives. Aside from the big ruling, also an L on immigration enforcement and expansion of gun rights.

 

Really quite remarkable that even with a deeply conservative bench, the most insane ideas out of the right still keep losing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they may be giving out these "small" victories so they can drop an nuke on us later. Claiming that they "gave" us positives on gun rights, LGBTQ and that we can't have it all. I'm calling it, we're going to get a ruling soon that is going to set this nation back 50 years.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

#1. Some of these Justices see they have this gig for life and feel free to not be indebted to the folks who through they'd be a consistent vote for whatever they want.

#2. Kavanaugh is bought and paid for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think they may be giving out these "small" victories so they can drop an nuke on us later. Claiming that they "gave" us positives on gun rights, LGBTQ and that we can't have it all. I'm calling it, we're going to get a ruling soon that is going to set this nation back 50 years.

While you may be right, you're also quite the buzzkill. 

 

 (kidding, of course) 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

#1. Some of these Justices see they have this gig for life and feel free to not be indebted to the folks who through they'd be a consistent vote for whatever they want.

#2. Kavanaugh is bought and paid for.

 

Kavanaugh showed he doesn't have the temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice.  To actually utter the schoolboy threat "What goes around comes around" at his confirmation hearing proved that.

 

He's an ideologue with a chip on his shoulder.

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

It’s fair to assume that Roberts only sided with the majority because of Gorsuch. By siding with the majority, he got to assign a libertarian the job of writing the majority opinion, since he’s the senior most member of the majority side. Otherwise, it would have been RBG writing this ruling, and it would have read very differently than what Gorsuch said. Had Gorsuch sided with the conservatives, this is a 5-4 ruling in favor of LGBTQ workplace discrimination.

 

I don't think that's fair at all. I mean, I guess it's possible, but Roberts and Gorsuch have both shown interesting independent streaks before. Roberts, of course, was the swing deciding vote that allowed Obamacare to survive, and Gorsuch has had some interesting cases where he cowrote majority opinions with RBG of all people.

 

Unless you have some evidence to support your theory, I think the more reasonable conclusion is that the three most dogmatic, hardliner conservatives stayed in form, and Gorsuch and Roberts rules the way they did because they thought that's where the law and Constitution led them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

........

 

Unless you have some evidence to support your theory, I think the more reasonable conclusion is that the three most dogmatic, hardliner conservatives stayed in form, and Gorsuch and Roberts rules the way they did because they thought that's where the law and Constitution led them.

Just curious would you describe RBG, Sotomayer, Breyer and Kagan as the four most dogmatic hardliner liberals? Of all the justices they are the least likely to break from their perceived grouping (Well maybe Alito matches them). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Really quite remarkable that even with a deeply conservative bench, the most insane ideas out of the right still keep losing.

 

Well, they keep moving the goalposts faster than they can pack the court,  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, techboy said:

 

I don't think that's fair at all. I mean, I guess it's possible, but Roberts and Gorsuch have both shown interesting independent streaks before. Roberts, of course, was the swing deciding vote that allowed Obamacare to survive, and Gorsuch has had some interesting cases where he cowrote majority opinions with RBG of all people.

 

Unless you have some evidence to support your theory, I think the more reasonable conclusion is that the three most dogmatic, hardliner conservatives stayed in form, and Gorsuch and Roberts rules the way they did because they thought that's where the law and Constitution led them.

 

Also wanted to add that had RBG decided to write an opinion that was far more skewed towards fundamental rights as opposed to textualist interpretation of the statute, Gorsuch could have just concurred and written a separate opinion.  You might see justices work on finding middle ground and swtiching votes to get a 9-0 or avoid a 4-4-1, but It's unlikely for a Chief Justice to switch votes just so he can pick who drafts the opinion.  More likely than not, liberal wing would have had no chance of bringing Gorsuch on board without going along with his reasoning.

 

It's also not too surprising to have Gorsuch vote this way.  He is a dogmatic textualist that sees almost no role for legislative intent in judicial interpretation.  Kavanaugh/Alito is more combination of the two and Thomas can seem different depending on the opinion. 

 

But of all the justices, Gorsuch was the most likely to be swayed by the logical conundrum posed by banning sex discrimination while allowing sexual preference discrimination.  If being attracted to a man is okay for a woman, then it must also be okay for a man.  For Gorsuch, it was that simple.  He didn't care that drafters of Title VII likely never contemplated LGBTQ issues in their legislative work.  To him, the statute means what the statute says, not what the drafters meant for it to say.

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...