Two droppers from Supreme Court: LGBTQ decision and you can't believe who wrote this

Two droppers from Supreme Court: LGBTQ decision and you can't believe who wrote this
All of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on heated social issues come out 5-4, so Monday's vote 6-3 suggesting employers cannot fire workers for being gay or transgender is quite surprising.

Even more surprising is that the majority opinion was written by President Donald Trump's first designer of the court: Neil Gorsuch. Trump's most recent team, Brett Kavanaugh, was with the other two court dissidents, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Gorsukh came to court after Antonin Scallia's demise in 2016, and Kavanugh succeeded Anthony Kennedy, who wrote all gay rights regimes until he retired in Monday, 2018.

"The DCBT community was terrified that the retirement of their hero, Judge Kennedy, would give them a major setback in the Supreme Court. Instead, it's a big win," said SCOTUSblog editor Tom Goldstein of DC, Washington DC. The lawyer who often argues in court.

The irony here is that Trump's most conservative candidate writes general opinion, while Kavanaugh, who had more hope on the left, is with dissidents, "Goldstein said.

Supreme Court President John Roberts tasked Gorsuch with writing opinions, perhaps to underline that it is based on a strict reading of the law: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and sex. , Among other factors

Undoubtedly, Gorsuch said, Congress was not thinking about sexual orientation or gender identity when it wrote the law 56 years ago. But what matters is the words of the law, it was not in the mind of Congress.

It is impossible to discriminate against someone without being discriminated against for their gender by being gay or transgender, "he wrote. If an owner fires a man to be attracted to other men, Gorsuch Continued, "The employer discriminates against him for his qualities or actions. You tolerate your coworker. "

Gorsuch points out that his predecessor, Scalia, also said that the laws have consequences that cannot be considered when the Congress has not passed them.

For example, Scalia ruled in favor of a man who was sexually assaulted by other men on an offshore oil platform. Lower courts held that only actions of members of the opposite sex could be considered illegal harassment, but Scalia said no. If the woman were, the worker would have been treated differently, so that he would have been gender discriminated.

Monday's decision was widely criticized by Gorsuch's conservative friends, as he certainly knew it would. Carrie Severino, a former Thomas employee, said: "Judge Scalia will be disappointed that his successor has misused textism so badly today because of appeals to university campuses and editorial boards."

Alito, in his dissent, was scaring the ruling by calling it "absurd", a method of legislating under the guise of a judicial decision.

"The question in these cases," he wrote, "is not whether discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity should be prohibited. The question is whether Congress did this in 1964. Undoubtedly."

Separating, Kavanugh agreed that the government had crossed the ruling line between branches. But he lacked bitterness in his opinion.

In summary, he said: "Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to obtain equal treatment in law and indeed ... they have powerful powerful policy arguments and can be proud of today's result .

Post a Comment