[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6781

File: 1600562653268.jpeg (69.07 KB, 1160x773, 1160:773, scotus-half-mast-2020.jpeg) ImgOps Google

This is a politics-allowed supplement to http://ponyville.us/pony/res/1055628.html

Please keep in mind the high standards of /townhall/.

 No.6784

Naturally enough, a lot of my fellow LGBT Americans are feeling severe fear about the near future, even more so than before (and things have been rather terrible lately for multiple reasons).

Good story about that in: https://www.amny.com/courts/ripple-of-fear-across-progressive-and-lgbt-movements-in-america-following-ginsburgs-death/

There's something that I do want to point out, though, in terms of maybe tampering down on that a bit. I think. Not sure, but...

The story states:
>"Ginsburg [has had] consistent support for equal rights advances achieved by the community in decisions dating back to 1996, when the high court struck down a Colorado voter initiative that barred the state or localities from enacting gay and lesbian rights protections. She would go on to vote with the majority in the 2003 decision striking down sodomy laws, the 2013 decision which threw out the Defense of Marriage Act, the 2015 decision guaranteeing marriage equality nationwide, and this year’s ruling finding that employment  discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is barred by the sex discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title VII."

While the process has been rocky at best, that's twenty-five years of progress in terms of equal rights for LGBT people. The tide has turned. With the Donald Trump administration being the most anti-LGBT presidency since Reagan arguably, there's a right-wing push to get rid of all of that, indeed. Can it really be feasible, though?

I may be very wrong on this, but I'm inclined to think that the twenty-five years of precedent against anti-LGBT bigotry is sort of 'baked into the cake' and not really reversible. Despite being known as dogged conservatives, the strict constructionist block on the Supreme Court has shown some willing to accept reality these things. Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, for instance, earlier this year helped make the landmark anti-discrimination decision that basically betrayed his own party to the core.

Thoughts?

 No.6789

File: 1600583318232.gif (1011.6 KB, 500x418, 250:209, 1518142360073.gif) ImgOps Google

>>6784
>there's a right-wing push to get rid of all of that, indeed. Can it really be feasible, though?
I doubt it is feasible.  Much of the conservative resistant to gay marriage was rooted in literal conservatism, i.e., resistance to making major social change.  Now that gay marriage is the law, and no apparent ill effects, I suspect there isn't very much of a push to overturn it.  And re-criminalizing butt sex isn't really even on the table any more.  

>Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, for instance, earlier this year helped make the landmark anti-discrimination decision that basically betrayed his own party to the core.
I wouldn't really say that it was a betrayal, because judges (acting in their capacity as judges) aren't supposed to have any party loyalty at all.  Despite how politicized judicial nominations are, judges aren't supposed to be political.  They are supposed to even-handedly interpret the law.  It is considered unethical for a judicial nominee to give a commitment to rule one way or another on an issue, because a judge is supposed to carefully consider arguments that are presented in a case.  The parties and amici in Bostock v. Clayton County presented a very good argument that the statute at issue effectively banned LGBT discrimination in employment, even though the drafters of the statute didn't intend it to.  Gorsuch was convinced by this argument and voted accordingly.

 No.6791

>>>/pony/1055762
>>"The American system is anti-fragile."
>Has... has he been in a coma since 2016?
I'd say 2016--2019 actually does illustrate how the American government is anti-fragile.  Think of it: you have a senile lunatic as head of the federal executive branch, and yet, for the most part, the government continues to function normally.  This year, with the Trump administration's handling of the Coronavirus, is where the anti-fragility starts to become questionable, but we still aren't much behind many other developed countries.  

 No.6792

>>6789
What do you make of the notion that since anti-discrimination rights in the workplace are comparatively new, that they could be overturned?

While there's not much of a push to, say, get rid of gay marriage, there is a major constituency in the U.S. that genuinely believes in the "right to discriminate". And there's a history there of good faith pro-free-market arguments. Hell, Nobel Prize winning economist and political thinker Milton Friedman even thought as such, and he wasn't one to adopt positions that had no basis on some reasonableness.

While condemning bigotry, as a matter of principle it's possible to say that a company should be allowed to fire, not hire, refuse as a customer, and so on anybody who's black, gay, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. It's the free market. It's the right to property. The right to self-determination. Businesses should be left alone by a Constitutionally limited small government to discriminate as they see fit.

I don't personally buy any of that. But a lot of conservatives and libertarians do. Could that carry the day in the future?

 No.6794

File: 1600586381365.jpg (81.31 KB, 525x460, 105:92, 1460828609761.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6792
>What do you make of the notion that since anti-discrimination rights in the workplace are comparatively new, that they could be overturned?
Will Bostock v. Clayton County be overturned by a future Supreme Court?  I'd consider highly unlikely, since the Supreme Court applies stare decisis particularly severely in regards to statutory interpretation (as opposed to interpretation of the Constitution).  It would be up to Congress to revise the statute.  And the since the Democrats have control of the House and are unlikely to lose it, any chance of a bill to roll back LGBT rights seems unlikely to pass.

 No.6795

>>6794
Yeah, I'm inclined to think that just about all of it in terms of LGBT rights is 'baked into the cake' or whatever metaphor that one wants to use.

I guess the counter-argument is that since conservatives and libertarians haven't abandoned quests to go back and repeal a wide variety of court cases, even ones back into the 70s with Roe v. Wade and before, than they likely won't stop as well trying to make the courts rule in support of a 'right to discriminate'.

What do you think about that?

 No.6800

The Supreme Court is a stupid system that should be abolished. We have a council of 12 elders that get to decide who can get married. That's some archaic Game of Thrones shit. Not to mention, the American people get no say on who sits on this council, who make decisions that affect our lives.

With that said, it's clear the Republican party has been manipulating things to choose who gets on the courts. First by refusing to appoint Obama's pick, then by choosing a rapist, and now by rushing this decision before Ginsberg's body is even cold. It's clearly underhanded and the Republican party is a known danger to anyone not in their base (Trump has openly stated as such. "If you remove blue states".)

Thios looks pretty bad for women. Pretty bad for LGBT people, and pretty bad for people of color. Just bad bad bad all around because of what the Republican party is and always has been.

 No.6805

File: 1600634804720.jpg (1.89 MB, 1250x1700, 25:34, 1484967623141.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6795
I think a push for a 'right to discriminate' would more of a legislative push than a judicial push.  I don't think there is anything in the federal Constitution or any state constitution that would protect a supposed 'right to discriminate'.  Any judicial proceedings would be limited to whether existing statutes prohibit discrimination, not whether the legislature may enact new laws to prohibit it.

>>6800
>The Supreme Court is a stupid system that should be abolished. We have a council of 12 elders that get to decide who can get married.
I think you misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court.  The judicial branch is supposed to simply apply enacted laws to individual cases.  The justices on the Court aren't using their own policy preferences to decide things like who be able to get married to whom (or at least they aren't supposed to be; like all humans, the justices are imperfect and biased and sometimes make errors).  Ideally, you could have a judge who vehemently hates gays nevertheless rule in favor in gay rights if the law requires it.

Judicial nominees should be evaluated primarily based on their ability to even-handedly apply the law.  Nominees who are skilled at legal reasoning and who have the ability and inclination to set aside their own political preferences when judging would make good judges regardless of their party affiliation.

>>6800
>pretty bad for people of color. Just bad bad bad all around because of what the Republican party is and always has been.
Actually, back in the 1800s and early 1900s, the Republican Party was the party in favor of black rights, and the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery/pro-segregation party.  Things flipped in the 1950s/60s.

 No.6806

>>6805
Ok granted. But it seems needlessly nitpicky to point out that things were different hundreds of years before anyone using this board or maybe even anyone using this board's grandparents were alive.

You can add "always has been for the lifetime of most human beings alive today" if the wording really bothers you, but it appears to me you're just trying troll.

 No.6808

>>6805
What do you make of the strident libertarian notion that there's a reasonable-ish argument to be made, though, that the first amendment protects a 'right to discriminate' because of freedom of religion. If someone is, say, a fundamentalist Muslim who believes that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs, refusing to serve them at a certain company, isn't that a sincere expression of their innate freedom of expression? And restricting their discrimination means squashing their sincere religion? Is that really a good idea given the first amendment?

I'm not a libertarian myself, or at least not a dogmatic one, so I don't agree personally, but then I don't think it's an opinion that's necessarily to be dismissed out of hand.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]