Tweet
Portly? Wiz has been on Jenny Craig and exercises like a woman possessed at Curves.
-
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln -
The data supports the first conclusion and the politics support the second. An exceedingly rare 2 for 2 for Podunk's finest administrator.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
In other news, I have some coronavirus/SARS/Ebola hybrid. Sick as a dog.
If I am gonna have corona, I want Lyme disease, too. Because we all know how nicely corona goes with Lyme.
badaboom.
I will show myself out."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
This is from a few months ago but it explains a little bit the dilemma in which Gorsuch possibly finds himself. He's basically torn between deciding the case in one of two ways: his traditionalist textualist method or what the article calls "purposivist" -- that's basically the idea that judges should try to understand the motives of those who wrote the law. Gorsuch's entire career has pretty much been to say that judges should NOT try to read the minds of people. The law says what it says.
It's almost impossible to argue that the lawmakers of 1964 intended to protect gays, trans people, etc. But if Gorsuch were to use that as the primary basis of his ruling, he'll be abandoning the textualist approach he has used his entire career.
So what happens when you just look at the text of the law? It's absolutely true there's no mention of the terms "gender identity", "sexual orientation", etc. The law just says that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of "sex". The argument proposed in other courts has been: if you allow your male employees to do "x", but don't allow your female employees to do "x", you're clearly discriminating on the basis of sex. I think we'd all agree that firing your female employees because they are dating or firing them once they get married (and not caring what the men do) is something the 1964 lawmakers very much intended to prevent.
The argument then goes that if you allow your female employees to date men but don't allow your male employees to date men, are you not discriminating on the basis of "sex"? That might not win everyone over but Gorsuch, at oral arguments at least, said he thought the textualist argument in favor of gay protection was reasonably strong but it might not be where he ultimately decides.
Comment
-
That argument is very old. It's been around since I've been in law school. It's the long been the argument of choice to shoehorn sexual orientation into sex. And why? Because efforts to amend Title VII to include sexual orientation have routinely failed one year after another. They know they need to legislate it. They KNOW. IT.This is from a few months ago but it explains a little bit the dilemma in which Gorsuch possibly finds himself.
As to the textual argument, the oral argument transcript is a good read. Gorsuch isn't unsympathetic to it. However, the most direct counter argument to it is that you're not being fired "because of your sex" but because of the sex of the person you're boning. And while there is an analogy to Virginia v Loving, that case was still fundamentally about racism. This gay example is not fundamentally about sex discrimination.
What's always very interesting is that it's the conservative who gets called out for his principles. Conversely, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are fucking activist don't give a fuck about the statute justices. If they were to, you know, follow congressional purpose then this is an easy case. Obviously, they are not. Obviously, their mind was made up. Apparently, the only justice who is giving this serious thought is Gorsuch. And, of course, if he rules against the GentryProg orthodoxy then HYPOCRITE!!!!!
Anyway....
The oral argument transcripts: (Gay) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...-1618_b97c.pdf and (Trans) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...8-107_4gcj.pdf
I can't see them reading "because of sex" to include trans. That's nonsensical. It's possible that they legislate sexual orientation into law.Last edited by iam416; February 21, 2020, 09:23 AM.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
What's interesting about Gorsuch is that his questions get to the framework. In discrimination cases the plaintiff typically has to show "but-for" causation -- that is, but-for my race, sex, religion, etc., I wouldn't have been treated this way. The employer then get say that they had "legitimate non-discriminatory" reasons for taking action -- or that my motivating factor for firing you wasn't because of your protected class. For example, rules that apply to all employees were the real reason for dismissal. So, in the legal context, the second point is the "proximate cause" or legal cause of the action. If they don't show a LNDR then the but-for cause becomes the proximate cause and the employer is liable.
What Gorsuch is saying is that "because of sex" could include sexual orientation in a but-for sense -- for the reasons stated above. However, he's very much leaving open the possibility that the employer could assert that sexual orientation was the proximate cause or legitimate non-discriminatory reason. That is, if you have a blanket policy that prohibits gay dudes or, says that you have to use the restroom of your biological sex, then that is not discrimination because of sex, but fundamentally because of sexual orientation.
So, if Gorsuch ends up siding with Plaintiffs then I could see him writing his own opinion -- you'd have 4 justices saying T7 flatly includes sexual orientation -- total legislation -- and 3 or 4 justices saying it does not. Gorsuch may say it does in a but-for sense, but that you can rebut it by showing that sexual orientation was the motivating factor.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
I'll have to check out the oral arguments later or this weekend.Originally posted by iam416 View Post
I think part of the problem is "race" is fairly straightforward in a way the word "sex" isn't. "Sex" (at least not to me) isn't a precise equivalent for the word "gender". I feel like it's vaguer, broader. It also implies sexual activity.
Comment
-
Two minor unrelated stories that don't deserve their own post
1) There's going to be a Republican civil war over the Georgia Senate seat. Trump floated a job offer to Doug Collins to make him DNI last night and less than 12 hours later Collins said on Fox that he's not interested.
2) Peter Navarro has been tasked with rooting out who "Anonymous" is. As someone joked, that's great if it keeps him occupied; he'll do a lot less damage that way.Comment
-
Look, my corona and Lyme joke is as good as I get. A little appreciation would be nice, you ingates."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
-
With jokes like that you could open for Yakov Smirnoff one day, kid!!Comment
-
Yeah, but then you fire someone for jerking off in the restroom and he claims you fired him "because of sex." So, yeah....no.I feel like it's vaguer, broader. It also implies sexual activity.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
You're too kind. Thank you."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
China is expected by the USDA to buy significantly less farm products than they have pledged in "Phase 1". They're on track to buy $14 Billion, not the $40 Billion called for in the deal.
Trump this morning vows that farmers will get all the money they need to make up the difference through sweet, sweet tariff revenue!!! (Which is paid for by other Americans, not the Chinese)
Comment
-
Life in Progressive Utopia -- female prisoner alleges she was raped by transgender inmate: https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/law...DtbzY71eCtvH2k
No way anyone could have possible saw this coming.
Anywho, quite the conundrum for #MeToo and always believe the women because, you know, the dude identifies as a women now. If I understand GentryProg grievance politics, always believe a transgender over a women.
Last edited by iam416; February 21, 2020, 11:30 AM.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
Comment