Author Topic: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights  (Read 2485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 307,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,607
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2020, 07:38:11 »
Aaaand! It took this long.

See rest of article here

 :pop:

I’m not sure he’s temperamentally equipped to deal with situations that he cannot resolve either by coercing or simply firing someone who makes a decision he doesn’t like. We’ve been seeing it in international relations, and now we’re seeing it in the judiciary. The protective benefits to democracy of appointed, tenured justices are revealing themselves.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2020, 08:24:50 »
Another editorial about the abortion case here; basically pointing out that this only got struck down because it was a stupid and lazy attempt. (The opinion is fairly biased, but raises some interesting bits about the already limited access and the impact this would have had)


Quote
Despite the supreme court abortion ruling, John Roberts has not become a liberal
Moira Donegan

The supreme court upheld the status quo on Monday, declining to further erode women’s rights for the time being. The court sided with plaintiffs representing Louisiana abortion providers in the case June Medical Services v Russo. The ruling, composed of one opinion signed by the four liberal justices and a very narrow concurrence by Chief Justice John Roberts, throws out a restrictive Louisiana law that aimed to close clinics by requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The decision upholds the court’s own 2016 precedent, Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt, which threw out an identical law in Texas just four years ago.
The US supreme court has given LGBTQ Americans a rare bit of good news
Moira Donegan
Read more

If the Louisiana law had been upheld, getting an abortion in Louisiana would have gone from difficult to nearly impossible. The state already has a grand total of three abortion clinics, which are staffed by a total of just five providers. Only one of those providers was able to gain hospital admitting privileges as the law required, and he had already stated publicly that if the law went into effect, he would not continue providing abortions (he stated concerns about clinic security and his own personal safety as reasons to not continue as the state’s only abortion provider). That the law was overturned does not mean that abortion is now easy to get in Louisiana; like other states, Louisiana’s available abortion care is dwarfed by demand, and many women, especially in poor and Black communities, cannot reach, find or afford the abortions that they need. It is still too hard to get an abortion in Louisiana and in much of the US. This ruling simply means that it will not become even harder.
Advertisement

But because the Louisiana law at issue was identical to the Texas law, and because the Texas law was declared unconstitutional by the court just four years ago, the case was less about the merits than it was about the supreme court as an institution. Nothing has changed since the Whole Women’s Health decision in 2016 except the makeup of the court itself: of the nine justices who presided over Whole Women’s Health, one conservative died and one swing vote retired, and Scalia and Kennedy were replaced by arch-conservatives and committed misogynists under Donald Trump, in the form of Neil Gorsuch and multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh.

[...] more on the site
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/30/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-john-roberts

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,285
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2020, 16:51:34 »
multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh  and yet not convicted and the accusations were a mess. I am glad the person that wrote this is not in a position of power as would abuse it.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,077
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2020, 17:16:36 »
multiply accused sexual assault perpetrator Brett Kavanaugh  and yet not convicted and the accusations were a mess. I am glad the person that wrote this is not in a position of power as would abuse it.

Concur; I read stuff from multiple sources and both the left and right are equally deranged in their own special way. Anyway, didn't know about the background context though, which was where this would have effectively shut down the few remaining abortion clinics in the state with an arbitrary and very difficult to secure admin requirement that provided no actual benefit, so thought I would share with the caveat included above.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,285
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2020, 17:27:30 »
Concur; I read stuff from multiple sources and both the left and right are equally deranged in their own special way. Anyway, didn't know about the background context though, which was where this would have effectively shut down the few remaining abortion clinics in the state with an arbitrary and very difficult to secure admin requirement that provided no actual benefit, so thought I would share with the caveat included above.

A requirement to be affiliated with a hospital seems logical, but the devil is in the details.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,357
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2020, 18:46:13 »
Another snippet of "background context" is that the law required a particular group of outpatient surgeries to operate under the same condition as the rest of outpatient surgeries in the state: to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case things go wrong.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2020, 20:53:09 »
A requirement to be affiliated with a hospital seems logical, but the devil is in the details.

It is private health care, not public. If they so choose not to be affiliated with a hospital I would argue it is their right.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,357
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2020, 21:16:22 »
Good luck with that.  There are plenty of things private entities must and must not do.  Apparently individual rights, and public health and safety, are too important to be left to choice.  That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 234,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,324
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2020, 00:17:29 »
Another snippet of "background context" is that the law required a particular group of outpatient surgeries to operate under the same condition as the rest of outpatient surgeries in the state: to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case things go wrong.

Not quite.  But as Colin P wrote "the devil is in the details".

What the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act stated was:

https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=914189
Quote
(2) On the date the abortion is performed or induced, a physician performing
or inducing an abortion shall:
(a) Have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further
than thirty milesfrom the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and
that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services. For purposes of this
Section, "active admitting privileges" means that the physician is a member in good
standing of the medical staff of a hospital that is currently licensed by the
department, with the ability to admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical
services to such patient consistent with the requirements of Paragraph (A)(1) of this
Subsection.

However, when compared to what Louisiana requires of "Ambulatory Surgical Centers" (ASC)

http://ldh.la.gov/assets/medicaid/Rulemaking/NoticesofIntent/February2017/ACSLicStdNOIOct2016LAC.pdf
Quote
Medical Staff—those physicians, dentists, podiatrists
and other medical practitioners who are authorized to
practice in the center according to these standards and the
requirements of the governing authority

§4509. General
. . .
F. The treating or admitting physician shall be
responsible for effecting safe and immediate transfer of
patients from the center to a hospital when, in his opinion,
hospital care is indicated. The center is responsible for
developing written procedures for safe transfer of patients.
The physician responsible for effective transfer shall be a
member in good standing of the medical staff of one or more
hospitals in the community. Refer to Medical Staff, §4535 of
these standards.
. . .
§4535. Medical Staff
. . .
E. It is expected that each center will attempt to secure a
written transfer agreement with at least one hospital in the
community. If the hospital refuses to cooperate, the center
will maintain documented evidence of its attempt to acquire
such an agreement. A transfer agreement shall serve as
evidence of a procedure whereby patients can be transferred
to a hospital should an emergency arise which would
necessitate admission to a hospital. Since it might not be
possible for the center to obtain a written transfer agreement,
the center's compliance with the requirements of the next
paragraph will be evidence of its capability to obtain hospital
care for a patient if the need arises. Even though the center
may have been successful in its attempt to secure a transfer
agreement, the conditions of the following paragraphs must
be met.
1. Each member of the medical staff of the center
shall also be a member in good standing of the medical staff
of at least one hospital in the co munity and that hospital(s)
must be currently licensed by the Department of Health and
Human Resources. Members of the center medical staff shall
be granted surgical privileges compatible with privileges
grant hospital for that physician.

I notice a difference in how the now struck abortion law defined "medical staff" as compared to the definition in the ASC regulations.

But Louisiana does not require all abortions to be performed in a "licensed clinic", nor are all abortions surgical procedures, nor do they usually require general anesthesia which is often an element of procedures performed in ASCs.

http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/1036
Quote
One -7 Weeks

The abortion pill regimen, also known as RU-486, is a drug combination designed to end pregnancies up to 49 days after the last menstrual period (five weeks since conception).

The Abortion Pill Regimen

The abortion pill regimen is a combination of drugs that results in a chemical abortion. The pills must be taken in the doctor's office or clinic.

13 Weeks

Suction curettage (also referred to as vacuum aspiration) is generally used during the first trimester. Unless there are complications, this procedure is done on an outpatient basis and may be done in a physician’s office or a clinic.

Not all surgical procedures are performed in "licensed ambulatory surgical centers" or "hospitals"; what immediately comes to mind are vasectomies and circumcisions as well as many dermatology and plastics procedure that are done in a doctor's office.  What can be done in a Louisianan doctor's office is governed by the Professional and Occupational Standards issued by the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, Board of Medical Examiners; specifically, Chapter 73 Office-Based Surgery (page 47)

https://www.lsbme.la.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Rules/Individual%20Rules/Physicians%20June%202020.pdf

This is what they consider necessary if unforeseen complications require a patient to be transferred to a hospital.

Quote
7. Emergencies and Transfers
a. Emergency instructions along with the names and
telephones numbers to be called in the event of an emergency
(i.e., emergency medical services ["EMS"], ambulance,
hospital, 911, etc.) shall be posted at each telephone in the
facility.
b. Agreements with local EMS or ambulance
services shall be in place for the purpose of transferring a
patient to a hospital in the event of an emergency.
c. Pre-existing arrangements shall be established for
definitive care of patients at a hospital located within a
reasonable proximity when extended or emergency services
are needed to protect the health or well being of the patient.

I don't see any requirement in those rules for doctors performing procedures in their offices (some of which may be as interventional or more so than an abortion) to have admitting privileges as a prerequisite to practice, so adding that requirement for doctors performing abortions does not seem to be based on a clinical necessity.



« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 00:23:50 by Blackadder1916 »
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,357
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2020, 00:42:06 »
Let one of the legislators (Katrina Jackson, D) provide the context, then.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 270,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2020, 01:31:06 »
Let one of the legislators (Katrina Jackson, D) provide the context, then.

Then let's put Katrina Jackson into context. While a Democrat, she's a firm pro-life advocate (in fact she frequently calls it "Whole Life" which essentially means she wants to not only restrict abortions but have the state provide support afterwards across a wide spectrum). Louisiana is a state with fairly strong religious constituencies that cross party lines and as such pro-life issues generally cross party lines and have wide-ranging support.

See: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/katrina-jackson-offers-glimpse-whole-life-politics-louisiana

See also: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/katrina-jackson-pro-life-democrat-louisiana

Make no mistake about it. This legislation uses women's health as a cover for what is first and foremost a religious based pro-life agenda. The majority of the USSC saw through the smoke and mirrors and recognized that there was no real medical or scientific basis behind the legislation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/29/louisiana-abortion-law-undue-burdens-no-medical-benefits-column/3280613001/

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,357
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2020, 14:19:31 »
Which supports my point: "That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn."

The "if it saves one life" crowd takes a vacation when it suits their political preferences.

That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2020, 14:52:07 »
Which supports my point: "That's the amusing part: many people who are typically in favour of layering on all sorts of government-mandated protections suddenly made a 180 degree turn."

The "if it saves one life" crowd takes a vacation when it suits their political preferences.

It is also interesting that the people who are against all sorts of government mandated protections/interventions suddenly feel the need for the government to make a bunch up to suit their beliefs/restrict others. Both sides are fairly hypocritical here...

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,285
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2020, 15:43:32 »
Then let's put Katrina Jackson into context. While a Democrat, she's a firm pro-life advocate (in fact she frequently calls it "Whole Life" which essentially means she wants to not only restrict abortions but have the state provide support afterwards across a wide spectrum). Louisiana is a state with fairly strong religious constituencies that cross party lines and as such pro-life issues generally cross party lines and have wide-ranging support.

See: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/katrina-jackson-offers-glimpse-whole-life-politics-louisiana

See also: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/katrina-jackson-pro-life-democrat-louisiana

Make no mistake about it. This legislation uses women's health as a cover for what is first and foremost a religious based pro-life agenda. The majority of the USSC saw through the smoke and mirrors and recognized that there was no real medical or scientific basis behind the legislation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/29/louisiana-abortion-law-undue-burdens-no-medical-benefits-column/3280613001/

 :cheers:

"A whole life" belief is something I can respect for sure. I still believe that the majority of Canadian would support abortion in the first trimester, likley a slim majority for 2nd trimester and a majority against it in the third trimester, unless certain circumstances are met. The concept that "life" starts outside of the womb is "legally neat" but has no real scientific basis.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 270,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2020, 16:23:48 »
"A whole life" belief is something I can respect for sure. I still believe that the majority of Canadian would support abortion in the first trimester, likley a slim majority for 2nd trimester and a majority against it in the third trimester, unless certain circumstances are met. The concept that "life" starts outside of the womb is "legally neat" but has no real scientific basis.

It always has been and always will be a balancing act which is based on numerous scientific/medical, moral, religious and other factors. The question has never solely been "when does biological life begin?" but rather "when does a viable biological element become a human life separate and apart from it's host/mother?" Let's not forget that there are some elements of our society that still believe that any form of artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. The trimester division percentages that you give may be accurate (I really don't know one way or the other) but are nonetheless based on no credible evidence one way or the other except on a more or less emotional basis of whether or not the fetus "looks" more human in its later stages.

"Whole life" is about as close to universal socialism as one can get. I doubt that the "pro life" faction will ever be persuaded to embrace the "whole life" movement except on this one very narrow issue.

Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,357
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2020, 20:07:01 »
>Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty, but why is this "interesting"?  Death-row convicts are guilty of something vile, but the unborn are not.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 270,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2020, 21:04:13 »
>Interesting that pro-life Louisiana still has the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty, but why is this "interesting"?  Death-row convicts are guilty of something vile, but the unborn are not.

"All life is sacred". "Judge not lest you be judged". “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Christianity greatly mitigates against the Old Testament "eye for an eye" principles. Add to that the racial inequality that comes with the application of the death penalty in the US and you have a strong religious/moral argument against the death penalty.

Personally, I am not against the death penalty but then I'm also pro-choice and in both cases I see consistency in my view that there are circumstances where society can morally end a life not yet started or one so worthless it should not be allowed to continue.

On the other hand I consider it hypocritical to argue on the one hand about the sanctity of a life not yet started (especially when we're talking about an early stage cluster of protoplasm) and yet feel that it's quite alright to execute someone. In neither case do you have any idea if the life to follow will have value or not. Whatever line is drawn is an arbitrary one and, undoubtedly, easily rationalized in retrospect.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,285
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2020, 21:53:08 »
I am personally uneasy on late term abortions and push comes to shove would vote against them. I also support some Capital punishment. Attempting to keep a prisoner that can no longer be punished and is a constant danger to the inmate makes them a candidate. Also people who have killed multiple times on separate occasions. Both require a very high level of proof before sentencing as there is no ability to reserve it. I think it's unfair on other prisoners and the people responsible to contain them to keep them. We as a society have tendency to stick people either back on the street or into prison and then forget about what happens next.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 270,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #43 on: July 01, 2020, 22:15:31 »
I am personally uneasy on late term abortions and push comes to shove would vote against them. I also support some Capital punishment. Attempting to keep a prisoner that can no longer be punished and is a constant danger to the inmate makes them a candidate. Also people who have killed multiple times on separate occasions. Both require a very high level of proof before sentencing as there is no ability to reserve it. I think it's unfair on other prisoners and the people responsible to contain them to keep them. We as a society have tendency to stick people either back on the street or into prison and then forget about what happens next.

Fair enough and I don't criticize people whose opinions are different from mine in degree.

Where I find fault is with people who create black letter law that impacts other peoples' choices because of some dogma pronounced by some priest or sheep herder some three or four thousand years ago.

 :stirpot:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,285
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2020, 23:32:47 »
Secularists in the 20th century certainly did their fair share of Black letter laws on "Family planning" that negatively impacted millions, all based on the rantings of some angry old farts from the 18 & 19th centuries.  8) 

Speaking of which: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22788&utm_term=Editors%20Picks%20OC&?tpcc=22788

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 270,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2020, 23:47:15 »
Secularists in the 20th century certainly did their fair share of Black letter laws on "Family planning" that negatively impacted millions, all based on the rantings of some angry old farts from the 18 & 19th centuries.  8) 

Speaking of which: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22788&utm_term=Editors%20Picks%20OC&?tpcc=22788

Didn't say they had a monopoly. There's a lot of stupid to go around.



 ;D
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Xylric

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: Gorsuch, the USSC and the rights of LGBTQ Employment Rights
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2020, 12:50:37 »
 One of the things that always surprises me, regardless of how well my background prepares me to predict the occurance of such things, is just how frequently otherwise logical laws end up being given the same immutable elements one sees in religious dogma. If the law is good and just (like for example, those related to murder), by all means let them have such a status, but if the law is one which is temporally relevant as opposed to being derived from universal truth, such as laws related to culturally sensitive issues, there is both tremendous risk and tremendous benefit.

I don't envy the difficult job the SC Judges have in making those risk/benefit evaluations for the interpretation of the laws, simply because history does not have 'sides' - only the truth.