HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gorsuch/Roberts appreciat...

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:51 PM

Gorsuch/Roberts appreciation thread.

That headline is something I thought I’d never write.
But what they did deserves some positive reinforcement and thanks from us progressives.
Gorsuch, especially, stunned the world.
What he did will help save countless numbers of jobs and careers for LGBTQ people.

I blast him and others when they support terrible things.
So, I feel it’s only right to praise decisions like this one.
He didn’t have to do this.
Conservatives, especially Evangelical ones, now hate him.

So, thank you Justice Gorsuch and CJ Roberts for doing the correct thing today.

29 replies, 956 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gorsuch/Roberts appreciation thread. (Original post)
Funtatlaguy Jun 2020 OP
Proud liberal 80 Jun 2020 #1
Crunchy Frog Jun 2020 #3
LenaBaby61 Jun 2020 #10
chillfactor Jun 2020 #2
Squinch Jun 2020 #12
Skittles Jun 2020 #20
Loki Liesmith Jun 2020 #4
honest.abe Jun 2020 #15
AlexSFCA Jun 2020 #16
Loki Liesmith Jun 2020 #23
Ms. Toad Jun 2020 #28
ibegurpard Jun 2020 #5
Funtatlaguy Jun 2020 #6
wellst0nev0ter Jun 2020 #7
dem4decades Jun 2020 #8
RandySF Jun 2020 #9
totodeinhere Jun 2020 #11
JHB Jun 2020 #13
UTUSN Jun 2020 #14
AlexSFCA Jun 2020 #17
LakeArenal Jun 2020 #18
honest.abe Jun 2020 #19
Maven Jun 2020 #21
PlanetBev Jun 2020 #22
Funtatlaguy Jun 2020 #24
mvd Jun 2020 #25
kwolf68 Jun 2020 #26
onetexan Jun 2020 #27
Blasphemer Jun 2020 #29

Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:55 PM

1. Nope

F*ck both of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud liberal 80 (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:56 PM

3. ++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud liberal 80 (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:13 PM

10. F*ck both of them

Agree

Let them tell fat ass that he has to release his taxes, and lets see if they keep abortion safe and legal. IF they rule correctly on those two cases then I MAY give them a tiny bit of props. Just a tiny bit, because you know damn well that they're not going to give liberals everything that they want.

EVER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:55 PM

2. I will hold off on my thanks...

until I see how they vote on the abortion issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:23 PM

12. This exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:55 PM

20. same

I am betting their newfound humanity does not extend to women.

And Gorsuch still sits on a stolen Supreme Court seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:57 PM

4. Gorsuch used reasoning that won't generalize well for us

A win is a win but a close reading of the opinion shows that it will problematize future liberal goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:39 PM

15. Well we all know he is not a liberal but on this issue he voted the correct way.

I will be pleased if he votes with us on some of these critical cases. I dont expect him to vote with us frequently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:40 PM

16. in which way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 16, 2020, 10:59 AM

28. Good summary.

I have always thought the argument that won the day was too clever by half. But astute court watching, as described here, explains how it ended up - in this case - carrying the day.

I think it will extend well to other laws barring sex discrimination. I even think, because of the way the holding was framed, it will hold up well to more subtle challenges which assert status (alone) is a legitimate basis for termination, even if termination based on acts cannot be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 06:58 PM

5. We'll see

Citizens United and gutting the VRA are owned by Roberts.
I can appreciate this decision without changing my opinions of them overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:00 PM

6. Yes. My thanks is limited ONLY for this one decision.

They have been and will be awful on many others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:03 PM

7. F**k them

They need to go. They don't deserve credit for not legislating from the bench for once in their entirely beshitted careers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:05 PM

8. I dislike them both. But Neal Katyal and Norn Eisen both thought Gorsuch was fair. They're much

smarter than me, let's hope they're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:07 PM

9. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:16 PM

11. I do not appreciate either of them.

They got this right but they are so wrong on so many other issues. It would suit me just fine if they both resigned from the Court after President Biden gets sworn in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:29 PM

13. Balk.

Neither of them belong on the SC.

We've had justices before who were not the "complete conservative operative as intended" before (see Souter), but those justices went through an unadulterated review process. Both these men are on the SC for reasons that defy any appreciation.

I'll appreciate them when they resign. They will deserve it then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:34 PM

14. UMmmm...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:43 PM

17. this case is gigantic

in scope and delivery (6-3). The fact that gorsuch wrote the opinion and rbg had nothing to add, is mind boggling. Similar to Kennedy I guess. Scalia would have never ruled like this. Will Kavanaugh shock us on abortion? wouldn’t that be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:44 PM

18. I've said since 2016, John Roberts could turn out to be the Superhero of this time.

He could make history or destroy history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:45 PM

19. I think these guys, in particular Roberts, will vote with us on certain future cases..

where Trump or the GOP push the limits of the law. Their votes could be the difference between disaster and survival. Yes, I will appreciate them for that if it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 07:58 PM

21. Nah. Merrick Garland would have written that opinion same as Gorsuch.

And he wouldn't be occupying a stolen seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 08:09 PM

22. Not a fucking chance

I don’t think they’ll be as kind when the abortion ruling is handed down in the next week or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PlanetBev (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 09:42 PM

24. Unfortunately, I agree. We won't get Gorsuch on abortion.

CJ Roberts will be the 5-4 decider on that one. Crossed 🤞 fingers he does correct thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 09:47 PM

25. I'll appreciate them on this ruling

It was very important for LGBTQ rights in this country. But as justices, they are still poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Mon Jun 15, 2020, 09:58 PM

26. Roberts also...


Voted in another case of importance to me,

COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII v. HAWAII WILDLIFE

Where he and YES Brett Kavanaugh voted with the Liberal wing. Though in Kavanaugh's affirmation he did nothing but quote Scalia, though it was well reasoned jurisprudence.

Here we have Gorsuch doing good work too.

The ONE Justice you can always count on for shitbag rulings is Thomas, he has to be the absolute worst Supreme Court Judge in American history. His pablum in the case I quote was gibberish a mediocre undergrad law student would utter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Tue Jun 16, 2020, 10:46 AM

27. i'm tentative about this victory, as historic as it is

See this is interesting op-ed's angle:

"Neil Gorsuch Lays Landmines Throughout LGBTQ Discrimination Opinion
This good result feels like an attempt to Trojan Horse in some awful stuff."
https://abovethelaw.com/2020/06/neil-gorsuch-lays-landmines-throughout-lgbtq-discrimination-opinion/?rf=1

"First of all, Gorsuch wrote the opinion. Handing a landmark ruling on civil rights to Gorsuch should tell you there’s some funny business in the offing. This wasn’t handed to the majority’s junior justice for the sake of doing yeoman’s work. In controversial opinions, the median justice might write the opinion to lay out the compromise terms that made the majority, but this opinion doesn’t seem to be all that prickly: the law says “sex” so you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex. The majority opinion isn’t based on a lot of sleight of hand or tenuous interpretations of different doctrines. Put another way, Sonia Sotomayor would have pegged an opinion squarely on that text in the statute too, so Gorsuch isn’t writing because of some kind of compromise. What’s the angle here?...
Now here comes the infamously pro-business, anti-regulation Gorsuch upholding a sweeping act of business regulation.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

There we go! This is going to be the vehicle for the next assault on basic tenets of statutory interpretation and Chevron deference. The Civil Rights Act has long served as every conservative’s favorite argument for textualism. “If courts considered legislative history, then they would have to dismiss the addition of ‘sex’ as a joke?” you can hear some pompous professor posit. This, of course, ignores that Smith’s anti-civil rights coalition wasn’t a majority and the majority that passed the legislation did so intending to take the term seriously despite its disingenuous introduction, but what’s a conservative argument without cherry-picking? In any event, a case involving this statute sets up a perfect bid to undermine the value of legislative intent in divining the meaning of statutory language, as well as the doctrine granting executive agencies deference in interpreting how to execute statutory language. All of that stuff is “extratextual” nonsense!

Gorsuch couldn’t be more clear about what he’s intending to do with this opinion short of inserting a giant winking emoji:

This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.

Eyes. Rolling. So. Hard. Right. Now.

Gorsuch then proceeds to, you can’t make this up, cite old editions of Webster’s Dictionary to determine what “discrimination” could have possibly meant to those of the distant past. Neil Gorsuch is exactly the guy at the wedding or funeral that begins with, “Webster’s Dictionary defines….”

Alito and Kavanaugh wrote dissents almost perfectly constructed to set up Gorsuch’s ode to triumphant textualism. Alito even goes so far as to say that it’s crazy to limit statutory interpretation to the analysis of the text in a passage that could be captioned, “TFW your wholly contrived judicial philosophy betrays your naked political philosophy.” Alito’s dissent, longer than the majority opinion, reads as such a celebration of TERF culture it may as well be titled: Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Bigot Tears.

Pointing to later legislation that specifically references homosexuality as an indication that it couldn’t have been intended by the term “sex” in the Civil Rights Act, the dissents earn a proper textualist admonishment from Gorsuch:

But what? There’s no authoritative evidence explaining why later Congresses adopted other laws referencing sexual orientation but didn’t amend this one. Maybe some in the later legislatures understood the impact Title VII’s broad language already promised for cases like ours and didn’t think a revision needed. Maybe others knew about its impact but hoped no one else would notice. Maybe still others, occupied by other concerns, didn’t consider the issue at all. All we can know for certain is that speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new legislation offers a “particularly dangerous” basis on which to rest an interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier Congress did adopt.

“Particularly dangerous.” Remember that one, because that’s what it will be the next time the Court levels its aim on a statute that fails to explicitly spell out everything it means. For a group of people who sneer at “900 page bills” and “hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations” they sure do want Congress to write out every eventuality.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 16, 2020, 11:24 AM

29. It's totally consistent with his hypetextualist approach, which means bad things in other cases nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread