|
|
Education Department says Title IX protects LGBTQ students (msn.com)
From the article:
In the 6-3 Bostock majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination based on sex.
Duh. Ridiculous that Trump ever disagreed with this.
so how many “sexes” are there? I know…two where the parts fit and reproduction can occur. Of course that’s science and not nature right?Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The “know-nothing” act is so charming. Don’t ever stop!
I see. The definition of sexes is as flexible as infrastructure and “commitment”
What sex is a hermaphrodite?
Is a female that is barren not a “female”?
Limiting the definition of “sex” to someone with a certain type of plumbing that fits with another plumbing and can reproduce…sounds like you are creating definitions that don’t divide the whole world into 2 groups, not science.
so it’s not nature (natural) that you and you fellow idiots support?
9-0 in favor of religious rights...
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia.
Not even liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan or Breyer dissented...
ABOUT THE CASE: The City of Philadelphia decided in March of 2018 that they would refuse to partner with Catholic Social Services in providing foster care services to children, unless the Catholic agency would place children in the homes of same-sex couples. Of course, this is impossible. Catholic teaching requires that we uphold the definition of marriage, but also affirm that children do best in homes with both a mother and a father.
The Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment:
"Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature."
I don't agree with the Bostock ruling mentioned above, but understand the legal definition used to justify the decision by the 6 who voted the way they did. I think they are wrong, but at least a Trump appointee voted against the POTUS who nominated him. Likewise this Philly case instills confidence in me about the SC.
Sometimes the SC gets it wrong...IMO...but if they are all applying the law, the Constitution, and are not being politically hacks, then they function, overall, in a manner that serves the best interest of the nation. This is exactly what MOST of us want! Yeah, sure, there are those extremists on both wings that want the SC to always rule in their favor on every issue. Not based on the law, but on political/philosophical leaning. I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be thrilled if the SC always ruled exactly the way I want them to. But, that's not the way the world works, so as long as they are being non-political and actually adhering to the law/the Constitution, I can live with those decisions that don't go my way.
Glad the decision went the way it did, but wish they had gone the full nine yards and overturned Oregon v. Smith. That was a bad decision (a 5-4 decision that was probably Scalia's worst hour -- and where all the dissent was on the left, though it now seems the left wants to oppose the idea of "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive means", sad).
In a 5-4 decision the SC ruled the CDC's eviction moratorium unconstitutional. I have not seen who voted for/against but I assume it was pretty much along party lines. This is long past due. In fact the SC should be more proactive in such cases. The NAR (National Association of Realtors) joined in a lawsuit against the CDC over a year ago...there were other plaintiffs...and a lower court ruled, a year ago, against the CDC's ruling, which the CDC appealed. The lower court judge set aside her ruling pending the appeal. And now the SC has failed to end the moratorium immediately opting to allow it to expire July 31.
The CDC and other such agencies do NOT have constitutional authority to impede on private property rights. Once the lower court had ruled the SC should have asked for the case...demanded! that the case come to it, since it was heading their way via appeal eventually. This was a fundamental, blatant violation of constitutional rights and was a slam dunk...or should have been. In fact, the SC should have voted 9-0 on this matter and the fact 4 morons didn't shows how dangerous the SC is capable of being. Again, I do not know which justices voted for/against.
No it didn’t. Kavanaugh joined with the majority to allow the CDC eviction ban to stay in place.
Heard about a case in California where a couple sold their home (big $$$ being in California) and when it was time to leave, the people who sold the house refused to leave stating COVID eviction or some such nonsense. So you now have people who have purchased a home legally. Are probably having to make mortgage payments on the house, and the prior owners are refusing to leave and California is allowing them to stay. That is just wrong IMO. This has been going on for months.
If so this is a bad ruling.
This is the government (first a bunch of idiot bureaucrats then the judiciary branch) depriving citizens of their property rights. This is worse than eminent domain.
Score one for the Marxists.
He must have been standing in the hall drinking from a red solo cup when the arguments were made.
If they took my property like that, I'd have it razed with the sellers in it. Can't kick them out, but perhaps a few alterations will change their minds.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote