OT: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers
- Thread starter FLaw47
- Start date
Pretty much anything remotely political is being moved by default.
Cris/Paul/Larry really had no choice.
Cris/Paul/Larry really had no choice.
Gorscuch Is the best judge we have. It’s funny the liberal media acts like he is a Republican yes vote. He will also side with abortions being legal.
Glad he’s on the court for sure.
Glad he’s on the court for sure.
I'm not a fan but he was on the right side on this one.
If memory serves, he did not vote to maintain the injunction in the Louisiana abortion case. This bodes extremely poorly for his chances at voting to overturn the Louisiana law. He may never vote to "overturn Roe" but I'll be pleasantly shocked if he doesn't uphold every bogus red state abortion restriction that comes across his plate.
If he sides with a state I feel confident it is because the constitution doesn’t give the federal government the authority to rule. I’m not a republican but understand conservative judges protect my freedoms way more than a judge that votes on “moral authority.”
Well if Stare Decisis has any relevance to him, a nearly identical restriction in Texas was tossed about by SCOTUS in 2016 and should mean that the Louisiana restrictions are clearly unconstitutional. The fact that he didn't vote to stay the law (in essence saying that there is no irreparable harm in not being able to get an abortion) suggests to me that he could give two shits about a woman's right to an abortion.
I don’t care what his personal opinion is. We have enough left leaning judges that vote on political opinion. He isn’t going to overturn roe v wade. Anything else is just media created smoke.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with your assessment at all. You can effectively overturn Roe without officially doing it - it's what red states have been trying since the 90's. You could pass a law that says "all abortion providers must have x-ray vision to ensure that women's health is protected". If Gorsuch says "well, that's not an undue burden", he's effectively overturned Roe. The goal right now is to chip away at access to abortions one step at a time - and they've been pretty successful so far.
Yes, the media does like to push fear. None of this will happen. It’s just fear tactics to help remind voters to turn up.
Give it time and we will see. I will be extremely shocked if Gorsuch sides with gays \ trans and then goes after abortion.
I hope you're right but this isn't the media ginning up controversy. Gorusch did vote against the injunction in the Louisiana case and that's typically a very good indicator that they're ultimately going to rule that the law is ok.
Yes. There is still discussion on how much should abortion be regulated. Still not the same as over turning roe v wade.
Gorsuch has always been for states rights. Not exactly ruling against abortion here.
Because I ardently support a woman's right to choose. It's not that complicated.
It's also a vote to ignore previous precedent of the court. This is the anti-abortion playbook right now - chip away at access one absurd law at a time. This law was already overturned in Texas as an undue burden. You can like the guy as much as you want to but every shred of evidence we've seen says he's a vote against abortion. What am I missing, seriously?
Yes but the same can be said with gun regulation. Most liberals agree that guns should be regulated even though it’s protected in the constitution. Abortion still hasn’t been added, and yet the argument is zero registration should be allowed.
You’re pointing out how inconsistent liberals are in their rulings. The topic isn’t important the reasoning behind a judges ruling is.
It’s the same reason the liberal judges were against California medical weed. There reasoning is the federal government > state government. The weed isn’t relevant. Left will always side with federal government. Obviously they disagree with states rights to regulate. Nothing new.
I feel like your argument is missing some stuff. Abortion is just as protected by the Constitution as gun rights are. Abortion was decided to be Constitutionally protected in Roe v Wade and Gun Rights in DC v Heller. Neither of those rights are explicitly in the Constitution (if gun rights were, it wouldn't have taken until the 90's for that to be discovered).
With that being said, perhaps you agree with Gorsuch's thought that abortion has no constitutional protection. But if it's reasonable to restrict abortions in the way that Louisiana tried to, so too would it have bee reasonable for a state to say "you may have a gun only if you have three arms."
The argument with abortion (as it's done in the court system) is not that restrictions should not be allowed. Casey v Planned Parenthood clearly established that restrictions were allowable so long as they do not create an UNDUE BURDEN. The problem is that certain states don't care about the Undue Burden part of it and try and get away with whatever they can. The law in Louisiana was not one created in good faith nor was it in any way with regards to women's health.
All that's to say - you can't have it both ways with Gorsuch. If he's state rights at the expense of Supreme Court precedent - he's a vote to overturn Roe. If he votes to allow a state to impose a restriction that's clearly an undue burden, he's a vote to widdle down access to abortion until it's gone. Nothing he has ever done has suggested that he's going to support Abortion rights, as you claimed he would:
The only credit that I'll give the man is that he stuck to a strict textualist interpretation of the law with the LGBT ruling recently - none of the other "textualists" did. The funny thing about about judge's who "only call balls and strikes" is they're free to change the strike zone whenever they feel like it. If the text doesn't agree with them, they can go "originalist" and say "that wasn't the intent at the time". If the intent at the time isn't with them they can say "oh, well that's not what the text says". With gun rights neither the intent nor the text guarantee an individual right to firearms and yet here we are.
yes, undue burden is the key. Judges will differ on if something classified as undue burden. Revoking roe v wade isn’t relevant to that debate.
You’re forgetting the claim by the left is that the conservative court will revoke roe v wade. Now they are settling for 5/4 victories to cry about because their narrative has been embarrassingly wrong.
Who is this "left" that you're talking about? I'm on the left and I don't think that's what's going on at all. The playbook is very clearly to eliminate access to abortions (in effect revoking Roe) one absurd restriction at a time. Gorsuch's vote shows both that he has no respect for Supreme Court precedent (an identical law in Texas was already overturned) and that he doesn't care about the undue burden requirement. There is no reasonable argument that these sorts of restrictions don't impose an undue burden other than "well I don't really care".
Maybe Gorsuch wouldn't be a vote to flat out overturn Roe (I doubt such a case would present itself) but he may as well with rulings like this.
