Neil Gorsuch fears 'massive social upheaval' if Supreme Court rules in favor of civil rights protect

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by LoyaltyisaCurse, Oct 9, 2019.

  1. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...

    Age:
    45
    Posts:
    38,762
    Likes Received:
    5,532
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    Is this a joke!? Just calls balls and strikes, right? Unbelievable...

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/neil-gorsuch-fears-massive-social-192200704.html

    “Judicial Modesty” Riiiiiight.

    More like cowardice in the face of backlash from his “base.”
     
  2. UncleChris

    UncleChris Retirement Doesn't Suck Contributor

    Age:
    68
    Posts:
    19,722
    Likes Received:
    4,153
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    A lot of men in the world, including Supreme Court Justices, seem awfully insecure about their pee-pees......
     
    LoyaltyisaCurse likes this.
  3. Rivercard

    Rivercard Too much good stuff

    Posts:
    19,347
    Likes Received:
    2,933
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Is everything
    That a non-elected Supreme Court justice has a "base" is really frightening. We are doomed aren't we?
     
  4. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...

    Age:
    45
    Posts:
    38,762
    Likes Received:
    5,532
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
  5. cheesebeef

    cheesebeef Registered User Contributor

    Age:
    43
    Posts:
    55,005
    Likes Received:
    11,744
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    this is such a load of horse manure if he votes based on fear of angry white people who can't discriminate anymore.
     
  6. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    The article plays on the left's fears; typical of push pieces that don't understand the Court.

    One of the canons of statutory interpretation is that if the text is vague or ambiguous, then you look to the legislative intent of the statute. In this instance, if the text is found to be vague or ambiguous (I don't think it is, but my opinion doesn't count), then the employees lose because there is no credible argument that Congress adopted Title 7 with the intent to protect LGBTQ individuals. It then falls to Congress, not the courts, to change the law. The courts don't fix stupid laws; they just interpret them.

    Gorsuch may be thinking that the statute is vague or ambiguous, and isn't willing to fix the statute - that's Congress's job.

    There's also an active debate going on amongst legal scholars whether Roe v. Wade caused more problems than it solved regarding the abortion debate. I think that's what Gorsuch was referring to when he talked about massive social upheaval.
     
  7. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    8,844
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    Per usual LVG is pretty spot-on. One aspect of a courts consideration is looking to the underlying public policy and intent of the statute’s drafters. They’ll do this if they believe a statute to be unclear. I think the general public often confuses this portion of a legal opinion with it being the judge’s biases. It shouldn’t be. They’ll look to earlier drafts of legislation or preambles, etc to help in that endeavor.

    Also in certain scenarios the court may look outside the exact language, if necessary, to construe the intent, but I think this is rare. A prime example I recall from law school (a long time ago) was the conflict between freedom of speech and the societal danger of yelling “FIRE!” In a crowded movie theater. But I think it’s a monumental stretch for Gorsuch to rely on that line of thinking in the way being discussed here (full disclosure - I haven’t read a single article or any actual comment from Gorsuch in regard to this matter). But if that’s what he’s doing, and the court relies on that, I believe it opens an awful Pandora’s box that may never be closed in jurisprudence.
     
    LVG likes this.
  8. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    I agree with you that this is a place the courts should not go absent extreme situations that involve public safety. I don't think Gorsuch will go there now.
     
  9. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    8,844
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    I pray you’re right.
     
  10. cheesebeef

    cheesebeef Registered User Contributor

    Age:
    43
    Posts:
    55,005
    Likes Received:
    11,744
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    I still think you're being really naive about this court. It appears to me Gorsuch is just looking for a reason to shoot this down.

    signature bet if he votes against protections for the LGBTQ community?
     
  11. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    If I'm wrong, then we've abandoned the rule of law. God help us all.

    He has all the justification he needs - the statute is vague or ambiguous; go back to legislative history and determine that there was no Congressional intent to protect LGBTQ persons under this statutory scheme.

    Boom. A 1L could write the opinion.
     
  12. Dback Jon

    Dback Jon Killer Snail Contributor

    Age:
    56
    Posts:
    52,783
    Likes Received:
    6,240
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Scottsdale
    So Gays and Lesbians SHOULD not be protected?
     
  13. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,787
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  14. Ouchie-Z-Clown

    Ouchie-Z-Clown I'm better than Mulli!

    Age:
    50
    Posts:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    8,844
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Location:
    SoCal
    He’s saying that judicial interpretation could arrive at the conclusion that it’s not protected (not whether it should be or not) under the statute. Two different things.
     

Share This Page