SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Fiye]

Fucking optimist right there.

[Andalusian girls]

its funny cuz in 2013 when Dems nuked for appellate noms everyone was like WELL IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN WITH SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. I give it 4 years

thanks Obama

[Niiro]

For real, if not for Obama the Republicans wouldn't have had to obstruct all levels of government purely out of spite.

[Andalusian girls]

obstructing purely out of spite you say

[Mertron]

obstructing purely out of spite you say

BUT HE STARTED IT

[Talint]

BUT HE STARTED IT

BOTH SIDES YOU GUYS BOTH SIDES THEY'RE ALL EQUALLY BAD.

[Salodin]

If he had no problem threatening to kill the filibuster to confirm this guy, what makes people think he'll go any easier on any other rules that get in the way of a conservative agenda? Shit was dead the moment the threat was made. Shit will be dead the moment the threat is made for the legislative process.

[Fiye]

Can't wait for the 4 extra judges Trump will appoint. 13 MEMBER SUPREME COURT LUCKY NUMBER

[archibaldcrane]

If he had no problem threatening to kill the filibuster to confirm this guy, what makes people think he'll go any easier on any other rules that get in the way of a conservative agenda? Shit was dead the moment the threat was made. Shit will be dead the moment the threat is made for the legislative process.

The filibuster is much more valuable to conservatives to stop liberal progress than it is for liberals to stop conservatives.

Also this current Republican-led congress doesn't know what the fuck they are doing and have shown little ability to pass a law in the House that could get even 50 votes in the Senate.

[archibaldcrane]

This isn't at the Supreme Court yet, but could be huge - 7th circuit court rules that Wisconsin school cannot deny trans student the right to use men's bathroom because of protections against discrimination based on sex in the 14th amendment. If the full case is reviewed in this manner (as the court decided was probable) then they are affirming federal "protected status" against discrimination for trans people - not just for bathrooms but for things like housing, employment, etc. like people have based on sex, race, and religion.

Never would have thought trans people had a shot at getting federal protected status before LGB people would, but here we are. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...m-ash-whitaker

[Rooney]

If they did (and it's a longshot), LGB would follow immediately. Well, as fast as the court system works anyways.

[archibaldcrane]

If they did (and it's a longshot), LGB would follow immediately. Well, as fast as the court system works anyways.

Why is it a longshot, and why would LGB follow immediately?

[Quicklet]

It would hinge on Kennedy (as usual), assuming it got to SCOTUS before he retires.

I suppose the argument is that if gender identification is a protected class, then sexual orientation would be as well, but I don't know if Kennedy would want to issue a ruling that broad were he to come down in favor of gender identification as a protected status.

[Rooney]

I say longshot because if the court rules in favor, I see them going the narrowest path possible to allow trans people the right to use the bathroom of choice, but not full out discrimination based on sex which would apply to many other areas (as noted). I say LGB would follow immediately (if the court accepts discrimination based on sex) because that was strong line of questioning during Obergefell V Hodges. Several justices seemed interested in pursuing, though it obviously didn't make it into the majority opinion. iirc it was suggested by Roberts, who ultimately dissented in the case.

Edit: basically what Quicklet said. They can rule in favor on narrow grounds, which would bring the trans community closer to parity with LGB but only offer activists a slow, incremental path for future cases. A broad ruling would likely allow activists to push through a lot of societal change in one go, which the court has been extremely wary of since Roe v Wade.

[Gredival]

I admit I have not read the case in question, but generally the way that the EEOC/HUD deal with discrimination against LGBT is to classify it as discrimination based on gender/sex -- specifically, they are victims of gender discrimination against because they don't fit stereotypical gender/sex norms (which, to be fair, is a pretty good characterization).

So while orientation is not a protected class under federal law, if an anti-discrimination agency wants to pursue a case they can swing it with the right judge.

[Talint]

Supreme Court to hear appeal in same-sex wedding cake case

The Supreme Court is taking on a new clash between gay rights and religion in a case about a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado.

The justices said Monday they will consider whether a baker who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The case asks the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple's right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the United States.

Supreme Court Orders States to List Same-Sex Parents on Birth Certificates; Gorsuch Dissents

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch wrote that “nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology” runs afoul of the 14th Amendment. His dissent should be deeply alarming to LGBTQ advocates; it indicates an eagerness to read Obergefell with implausible narrowness, and a hostility to the extension of civil rights to same-sex couples.

So yeah. Please tell me how Gorsuch is actually okay and cool and other dumb platitudes that have convinced yourself this isn't garbage.

[dasva]

I'm a little confused why you'd be able to purposely put non birth parents regardless of gender(s) on a birth certificate...

[BaneTheBrawler]

Sperm/egg donors. Also surrogates.

[Serra]

How do birth certificates currently work in terms of cases like surrogacy, arrangements where a mother is giving a child to another couple for adoption at birth, etc?

[dasva]

Sperm/egg donors. Also surrogates.

But why? Like at the end of the day how different is that from adoption? Well surrogates are because biology