Supreme Court to decide whether anti-discrimination employment laws protect on basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

[Jason]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-decide-if-anti-discrimination-employment-laws-protect-on-basis-of-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/2019/04/22/175fca02-6503-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html

 

I know this Congress passing a law that explicitly protects sexual orientation and gender identity is basically zero, and that people are going to get hurt by this SCOTUS ruling that the law doesn't cover sexual orientation or gender identity...but the law very clearly does not cover those things. And how often have we heard that sex and gender aren't the same thing? Someone who's undergone a sex change is the only one I can see reasonably being covered by the existing language.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I'm so not optimistic with the current court.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

There is no way to rule "correctly" on this without a de-facto rewriting of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[ByWatterson]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is no way to rule "correctly" on this without a de-facto rewriting of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

Correct.

 

I can see an argument for gender identity in the 1964 CRA, as gender discrimination is generally prohibited.

But I can see no honest argument for using CRA to eliminate sexuality discrimination. The law simply doesn't provide for that, and Equal Protection law is irrelevant here - CRA used Commerce Clause power to amplify Congress's power to protect citizens, as opposed to citizens having a preexisting, constitutional right against private discrimination.  

 

Final point: The success of Democrats and the left, broadly, in lawsuits like these is why they forgot by 2016 how to do politics; make the argument, build the infrastructure, win elections, pass laws. Not only does judicial legislating undermine rule of law, it also hurts the litigants' long-term goals and breeds the complacency that gave us Trump.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, ByWatterson said:

The success of Democrats and the left, broadly, in lawsuits like these is why they forgot by 2016 how to do politics; make the argument, build the infrastructure, win elections, pass laws.

The passing laws part is ignored by those who don't want to eliminate the fillibuster. The answer to an overreaching judiciary is an active as hell legislature.