LGBT News Appeals court says US Civil rights act extends to LGBT also

Excellent ruling. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in other circuits and who is on the supreme court if it gets there. If one of the sensible justices leaves and gets replaced by Trump I doubt any cases for equality will go in our favor for a very long time.

 

RBG seriously needs to hang on for dear life. I don't see anyone else leaving before her unless something tragic and unexpected happens. Even with Gorsuch confirmed I think equality cases will be decently safe for the time being - we'll still have a 5-4 edge.

 

I honestly think it's a bit too much of a stretch - the intent of Congress was almost certainly not to protect sexual minorities in 1964.

I think this is the most reasonable interpretation. The US courts are extraordinarily willing to act as a second legislature compared to other courts in common law countries, even beyond constitutional questions. Importantly, assuming courts to be the best vessel of political change undermines the democratic legitimacy of centre-left movements as well as sapping progressives' willingness to engage in electoral politics. It also means that right-wing voters and their representatives will see courts as something they have to politicise in order to maintain

The vibe of this I'm getting is that any Supreme Court interpretation relating to other acts analogising sexual minorities' rights with enshrined gender-equality rights changes the definition of what Congress is purported to have intended in this act. I'm not sure that's a particularly healthy reasoning process - it undermines a democratic branch of government and means its intent can be blatantly ignored.

I understand the US gives unusual powers to its judiciary compared to many other developed common law nations and acknowledge that I have no formal knowledge of US law. I do think that even if this is correct law, it is still not a very healthy process.

None of that means I oppose the outcome. What I'm questioning the quality of the decision and the implications it has on democratic culture and process.

 

Woah! This is pretty deep and very significant as far as I'm concerned.

Aussie is correct. It wasn't until later that sexual minorities were protected in the US. However, then 'intent' at that time and after could reasonably be construed to extend to sexual minorities. Having said that, I am generally a Conservative in the US on most issues, but, of course, not on most social issues.

I am totally against the liberal point of view that the courts can "make" law through interpretations or loopholes that the Legislators don't close. And, of course, I am totally FOR pro-LGBTQ legislation. I don't see a dichotomy between wanting the system/law to work for all of us while still maintaining conservative limits on what influence the Federal Government should have in our personal lives.

 

This is a real gem in the sludge we've been presented lately. I hope it retains it's shine.

 

It makes sense... maybe? If they wouldn't fire you if you were a woman who likes a man, but would fire you if you were a man who likes a man, sounds like discrimination based on sex. But, certainly the legislature in 1964 didn't care about sexual orientation.