MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on June 15, 2020, 11:23:50 AM
-
The Supreme Court handed a big win to the LGBT community Monday, ruling in a 6-3 decision that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- which already protected people from employer sex discrimination, as well as discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-gay-workers-protected-from-job-discrimination-in-big-win-for-lgbt-rights
Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts voted with the left-leaning justices.
"Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee," said the court's opinion, written by Gorsuch.
In other words, plain and simple, discrimination is wrong. Bravo to the justices.
-
Interesting that the Trump appointee, who was the source of much controversy and debate at time of appointment, not only slide “left” in the ruling, but wrote the opinion on it. Nice to see as I think discrimination and human rights should supersede politics (though that’s clearly rarely the case)
-
IMO, I get the sense Gorsuch is a true libertarian and not the fake Tea Party libertarian and you would expect decisions like this on this subject from a true one.
-
Gorsuch isn't always easy to define. And justices aren't always easy to put on a left / right continuum.
-
Here's a pretty good summary of how Gorsuch got there. There is some leftist fluff there, but you can't get through that to see where Gorsuch is coming from.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-discrimination-employment.html
-
82 complimenting this SCOTUS????
And....quoting Fox news????
Dogs and cats getting along. ND not sucking. Are these things possible too????
Mike, that was too easy. ;D ;D ;D
Oh, and in before the lock. It's too bad this will happen, but that's Scoop for ya these days.
-
82 complimenting this SCOTUS????
And....quoting Fox news????
Dogs and cats getting along. ND not sucking. Are these things possible too????
Mike, that was too easy. ;D ;D ;D
Oh, and in before the lock. It's too bad this will happen, but that's Scoop for ya these days.
Whenever I have a choice, I like to quote Fox News so an item won't be dismissed by potential readers.
This is a major SCOTUS decision affecting a large segment of society. By now, most of us know several gay people; this is no longer a fringe group of "others." So this is an important topic, and this thread shouldn't be locked, at least not unless it becomes political.
Or, as you said, in before the lock.
-
Glad to see this outcome. Thumbs up to Gorsuch and Roberts. This one should have been 9-0 IMO.
-
Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.
Alito's is the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum.
-
So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone treatment to get a women's scholarship at the collegiate level or could a guy just say I identify as a women to get that scholarship.
Just to make clear I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I fear it could hurt women athletes unless there are clear rules that the person is truly transitioning. Girls are sewing in Connecticut over this issue and wonder how this decision will affect that case.
-
So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone
The ruling was limited to extending gender-based employment rights to sexual orientation and trangendered individuals.
-
Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.
Alito's is the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum.
Which is interesting considering the narrative around both of them.
-
So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone treatment to get a women's scholarship at the collegiate level or could a guy just say I identify as a women to get that scholarship.
Just to make clear I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I fear it could hurt women athletes unless there are clear rules that the person is truly transitioning. Girls are sewing in Connecticut over this issue and wonder how this decision will affect that case.
I don't see that as the outcome of, or premise behind, this ruling. The majority seems to have found that when you discriminate against a transgender or homosexual person, you are inherently taking their sex into account. Because how can you disapprove of someone's same-sex relationship if you didn't consider that person's sex in the first place?
But that's not the same as saying sex, orientation and gender are synonymous.
-
Which is interesting considering the narrative around both of them.
True.
Kavanaugh's ruling, from skimming it, seems to be "Congress should amend the Title VII to fix this problem instead of the court doing it through this ruling, but it's good that we're not going to allow discrimination."
-
The ruling was limited to extending gender-based employment rights to sexual orientation and trangendered individuals.
So if the precedent is set for Title VII why not Title IX?
-
Kudos for SCOTUS getting this one right, despite real or perceived political biases.
-
Could not be more obvious. Huzzah.
-
So will this ruling apply to religious institutions and churches, temples and mosques?
-
A fascinating dichotomy. Other than mega church pastors, no one goes into the ministry to get rich. Most feel a calling and are following John 13:34, attempting to love others as God as loved us. Ironically, when the LGBTQ children of God go into work for most churches, the institution can't follow that commandment and feels the need to demonize them.
I don't know what will happen from a legislative perspective. I imagine a bunch of middle aged and older white guys will look for ways to exempt religious institutions and allow them to discriminate.
From a personal perspective, I try to discriminate against the people Jesus told us in the gospels to discriminate against.
-
So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship.
So if the precedent is set for Title VII why not Title IX?
So will this ruling apply to religious institutions and churches, temples and mosques?
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/2cc24777f6fbb0a19dba6a880bef2b0b/tumblr_njxq7aYvE01qflgdno9_250.gifv)
"You ask a lot of questions!"
Here's what the AP article about the ruling said:
But Monday's decision is not likely to be the court's last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted.
Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes' participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said.
“But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today," he wrote.
-
The Fox news set can't be happy with SCOTUS today, they seem to have lost a triple header.
LGBT decision. Sanctuary city challenge rejection. Gun right lawsuit(s) rejection.
-
The Fox news set can't be happy with SCOTUS today, they seem to have lost a triple header.
LGBT decision. Sanctuary city challenge rejection. Gun right lawsuit(s) rejection.
Hey 'topper ... don't make me ban you for making this political!
I always wanted to say that.
And yes, you're right. Actually, make that "correct," not right.
-
A fascinating dichotomy. Other than mega church pastors, no one goes into the ministry to get rich. Most feel a calling and are following John 13:34, attempting to love others as God as loved us. Ironically, when the LGBTQ children of God go into work for most churches, the institution can't follow that commandment and feels the need to demonize them.
I don't know what will happen from a legislative perspective. I imagine a bunch of middle aged and older white guys will look for ways to exempt religious institutions and allow them to discriminate.
From a personal perspective, I try to discriminate against the people Jesus told us in the gospels to discriminate against.
I share your sentiment. My choir director at my parish was gay and living with his partner. Just a month before he died from AIDS, he along with 15 other RCIA candidates were confirmed, received communion and accepted as a members of our parish and the Catholic Church. At his memorial mass over 2000 parishioners celebrated his life and 17 years of service to our community. He was loved.
However, there are those who believe otherwise; that the gay person is living a sinful life. As wrong headed as that may be to you and me they are following their beliefs in good conscience and the state should not compel them to act in contradiction to those beliefs. How many Imans would openly accept gays into their Mosques and schools? I don't want to live in a country where the state compels people what to believe or think and how to act on those beliefs.
-
I don't think the state should pass laws saying it is OK to discriminate.
-
I don't want to live in a country where the state compels people what to believe or think and how to act on those beliefs.
Too late.
Signed, Mormon Polygamists.
The state isn't telling anyone what to believe or think. They're just saying your right to believe or think something doesn't supersede Constitutional protections against discrimination (or other unlawful activity).
-
Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.
He likes beer.
-
Franklin Graham is always great craic.
-
The Fox news set can't be happy with SCOTUS today, they seem to have lost a triple header.
LGBT decision. Sanctuary city challenge rejection. Gun right lawsuit(s) rejection.
was this supposed to be teal? fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not. i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant". whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course. so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied
-
True.
Kavanaugh's ruling, from skimming it, seems to be "Congress should amend the Title VII to fix this problem instead of the court doing it through this ruling, but it's good that we're not going to allow discrimination."
Kavanaugh definitely wanted to punt this one after reading his portion. Makes an interesting point on the separation of power, but perhaps too literal in his interpretation of the written word of Title VII. The decision is 100% obvious but Gorsuch's way there was pretty neat to read.
-
was this supposed to be teal? fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not. i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant". whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course. so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied
You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?
Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?
-
You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?
Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?
I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.
-
was this supposed to be teal? fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not. i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant". whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course. so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied
The couple hours of "News" probably didn't care. The vast, vast majority of opinion/propaganda/misinformation programming was probably apocalyptic.
-
You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?
Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?
doesn't matter and that's not the point. i think the comment was unnecessary unless we open this bad boy up to all the stuff "the others" ignore cuz it doesn't get 'em all goose pimply(no offense goose. and if ya haven't noticed, it still is fox news against a whole bunch of others.
i don't know if MOST fox news on air personalities were happy or not, but maybe i'm just weird, but the rulings really didn't evoke either sadness or joy out of me. actually, it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, showing some that all the unnecessary beatdowns and personal attacks on these guys when they were appointed were way out of line.
-
actually, it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, showing some that all the unnecessary beatdowns and personal attacks on these guys when they were appointed were way out of line.
There was a "beatdown" on only one guy, who was accused of sexual improprieties by a woman that even Trump called "a very credible witness" (in a rare moment of honesty).
https://fortune.com/2018/09/28/trump-ford-credible-witness/
And yes, I agree that it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, though it was the only possible logical ruling. Really should have been 9-0.
I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.
Which probably goes to why he no longer is at Fox News.
-
I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.
shep was universally well liked by real people. he was at fox for 25 years. if that isn't a testament to #foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis nothing is. shep was/is a true professional unlike his "peer"(loosely referenced) at the other station. we will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes, but no matta
correction-"I am sure Shepard Smith IS actually quite happy about it"
-
#foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis
#foxnewswasfilledwithcreepyoldwhitemenwhosexuallyharasseditsfemaleemployees
-
shep was universally well liked by real people. he was at fox for 25 years. if that isn't a testament to #foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis nothing is. shep was/is a true professional unlike his "peer"(loosely referenced) at the other station. we will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes, but no matta
correction-"I am sure Shepard Smith IS actually quite happy about it"
If he left Fox because of his sexual orientation that would have been reported by now. He left primarily because he was the outlier when it came to Trump reporting at the network and secondarily because of his low ratings which to no ones surprise by Fox viewers.
-
If he left Fox because of his sexual orientation that would have been reported by now. He left primarily because he was the outlier when it came to Trump reporting at the network and secondarily because of his low ratings which to no ones surprise by Fox viewers.
I think this is accurate. 25 years is an awfully long time in any position, and being the outlier for that long was, I imagine, takes its toll. It would be no surprise if he did have low ratings, Smith played it down the middle and that it definitely not what Fox news viewers tune in for.
-
Was wondering what Shep was up to, so I looked it up.
He has a non-compete agreement that won't let him go to another network until this summer. ABC, CNN and MSNBC are said to be interested ... and why wouldn't they be? He is talented and knowledgeable.
He supposedly is not interested in being in a big opinion-giving role but more of a regular news gig.
He has donated $500K to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit group that works to protect press freedom overseas. Very important work.
-
I don't see that as the outcome of, or premise behind, this ruling. The majority seems to have found that when you discriminate against a transgender or homosexual person, you are inherently taking their sex into account. Because how can you disapprove of someone's same-sex relationship if you didn't consider that person's sex in the first place?
But that's not the same as saying sex, orientation and gender are synonymous.
I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex or go to court to protect their religious freedom.
-
I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex.
Gender identity and sexual orientation are traits. Not behaviors. And not allowing someone to act upon those traits is problematic.
-
Gender identity and sexual orientation are traits. Not behaviors. And not allowing someone to act upon those traits is problematic.
Trait: noun
a particular characteristic that can produce a particular type of behavior:
His sense of humor is one of his better traits.
Arrogance is a very unattractive personality/character trait.
So where in title vii does it say traits; it says sex. I guess we can't discriminate now based on our traits, like arrogance.
-
I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex or go to court to protect their religious freedom.
Is a closeted or celibate gay person not really gay because they're not behaving gay?
And no, nobody is being forced to hire a person because he/she is gay or transgender. You're just not allowed to discriminate against him/her because of it.
-
Is a closeted or celibate gay person not really gay because they're not behaving gay?
And no, nobody is being forced to hire a person because he/she is gay or transgender. You're just not allowed to discriminate against him/her because of it.
If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.
How could you fire or discriminate against someone for being gay when you don't know they are gay.
-
Trait: noun
a particular characteristic that can produce a particular type of behavior:
Right. It CAN produce a type of behavior. It isn't the behavior itself.
-
If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.
This is not what you wrote. You wrote " So religious institutions now must hire them." That's not true. Nobody is forced to hire a gay or transgender person. You just can't refuse to hire or fire a person for that reason.
If you read Gorsuch's opinion, he writes that whether Title VII's religious exemption applies for LGTBQ cases has yet to be decided.
-
nm
-
If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.
How could you fire or discriminate against someone for being gay when you don't know they are gay.
I mean, I have never asked my assistant if she identifies as female. Or married to someone who identifies as male. But the picture with them and her three kids on her desk kinda leads me to believe that she is a heterosexual female.
-
This is not what you wrote. You wrote " So religious institutions now must hire them." That's not true. Nobody is forced to hire a gay or transgender person. You just can't refuse to hire or fire a person for that reason.
If you read Gorsuch's opinion, he writes that whether Title VII's religious exemption applies for LGTBQ cases has yet to be decided.
Not forced, just can't refuse. So a small church will now have to incur large legal fees to go to court to see if their first amendment rights are exempted or not. Is there a religious exemption in Title VII?
-
This ruling leads me to believe that "bathroom bills," like HB2 in NC a few years ago that cost the state's economy hundreds of millions of dollars in business, would not fare well if appealed up to this SCOTUS.
And of course, the irony of the bathroom bill (aka Hate Bill 2) was that it would have legally required transgender men - women who now identify as men - to use the ladies room.
So all of the hypocrites who claimed the law was necessary to "protect little girls" would have had no problem with somebody such as Chaz Bono - full beard and all - occupying the same ladies room as little girls? Talk about the unintended consequences of legalizing discrimination.
Not forced, just can't refuse. So a small church will now have to incur large legal fees to go to court to see if their first amendment rights are exempted or not. Is there a religious exemption in Title VII?
Did you miss the part in which this has yet to be decided? I said it yesterday, and Pakuni JUST said it.
-
I mean, I have never asked my assistant if she identifies as female. Or married to someone who identifies as male. But the picture with them and her three kids on her desk kinda leads me to believe that she is a heterosexual female.
Well, if some closeted gay person had a picture with another man on his desk how would I know that is his SO. It could be his brother or frat brother for all I know.
-
Well, if some closeted gay person had a picture with another man on his desk how would I know that is his SO. It could be his brother or frat brother for all I know.
<sigh> OK.
-
This ruling leads me to believe that "bathroom bills," like HB2 in NC a few years ago that cost the state's economy hundreds of millions of dollars in business, would not fare well if appealed up to this SCOTUS.
And of course, the irony of the bathroom bill (aka Hate Bill 2) was that it would have legally required transgender men - women who now identify as men - to use the ladies room.
So all of the hypocrites who claimed the law was necessary to "protect little girls" would have had no problem with somebody such as Chaz Bono - full beard and all - occupying the same ladies room as little girls? Talk about the unintended consequences of legalizing discrimination.
Did you miss the part in which this has yet to be decided? I said it yesterday, and Pakuni JUST said it.
Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.
-
Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.
You are the king of the extreme slippery slope argument
-
Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.
I'd recommend you read the ruling to save yourself from jumping to a bunch of false conclusions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
-
Right. It CAN produce a type of behavior. It isn't the behavior itself.
I am arrogant person, but if I don't behave arrogant how would you know I am arrogant. If I don't know you are gay how can I discriminate against you for being gay.
-
I am arrogant person, but if I don't behave arrogant how would you know I am arrogant. If I don't know you are gay how can I discriminate against you for being gay.
The same way you can discriminate against a woman for being or planning to become pregnant.
-
The same way you can discriminate against a woman for being or planning to become pregnant.
First off is there a pending case for firing a woman for being pregnant and if there was they lose that case in a heart beat and how would I know if a woman is planning to become pregnant, read her mind?
-
First off is there a pending case for firing a woman for being pregnant and if there was they lose that case in a heart beat and how would I know if a woman is planning to become pregnant, read her mind?
You are assuming that organizations are not actively trying to find things out about their employees with the overt intent to discriminate. Lawsuits in the realm I referenced says otherwise.
-
I'd recommend you read the ruling to save yourself from jumping to a bunch of false conclusions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.
-
So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.
The opinion says that issue is unresolved. It in no way says a religious employer will most likely lose the case. Just read the opinion.
-
You are assuming that organizations are not actively trying to find things out about their employees with the overt intent to discriminate. Lawsuits in the realm I referenced says otherwise.
Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.
-
Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.
OK. Not sure why you are bringing this up here. It's not in any way relevant.
EDIT: And when your boss does something stupid, employees complain. When they have direct access to the public, aka a louder voice, those complaints are going to be public. The workplace is not a dictatorship.
-
So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.
I believe that there are three more pending cases that will address these issues in the context of religious institutions, including one involving the Little Sisters of the Poor. I believe that these cases will narrow the application of Bostock vs religious institutions.
-
Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.
Maybe we can get to taxing religious institutions, especially the big ones that act like big businesses, with million-dollar preachers and all.
I know that has nothing to do with the subject we've been discussing, but neither did what you just posted.
-
Maybe we can get to taxing religious institutions, especially the big ones that act like big businesses, with million-dollar preachers and all.
I know that has nothing to do with the subject we've been discussing, but neither did what you just posted.
Too many orgs qualify as non-profit
-
And today the Supreme Court upholds DACA. Twice in a week we are Making America Great by ruling against Mr. MAGA.
-
And today the Supreme Court upholds DACA. Twice in a week we are Making America Great by ruling against Mr. MAGA.
Yeah, rough week for the emperor. Sounding like a 5th grader, he's whining that SCOTUS "doesn't like me."
No doubt, Q-Anon thinks SCOTUS is part of the Deep State now, too.
These are tough times when a president can't be cruel for the sake of cruelty to 640,000 people who have only known America as home.
-
The trick is to be on the right side of history.
-
Imagine if Joe Biden had responded to the DACA decision with “they’re coming for our guns!” What would the MAGAs say about his mental state? Funny stuff. And then there was this...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-explain-building-cost-speech-a9562026.html%3Famp
Sleepy Joe might not be the old senile man in the race after all!
-
#foxnewswasfilledwithcreepyoldwhitemenwhosexuallyharasseditsfemaleemployees
Matt Lauer worked at Fox News?
-
The trick is to be on the right side of history.
"You wonder if you're going to be John Marshall or you're going to be Roger Taney," Roberts once said
"The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall," Roberts said. "But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney."
-
Imagine if Joe Biden had responded to the DACA decision with “they’re coming for our guns!” What would the MAGAs say about his mental state? Funny stuff. And then there was this...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-explain-building-cost-speech-a9562026.html%3Famp
Sleepy Joe might not be the old senile man in the race after all!
The gang that couldn't shoot straight. They need their guns for suicides. Sorry, just a fact.
-
"You wonder if you're going to be John Marshall or you're going to be Roger Taney," Roberts once said
"The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall," Roberts said. "But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney."
More monuments to come down.
-
Hahahahahahahaha ....
@realDonaldTrump: Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?
-
Hahahahahahahaha ....
@realDonaldTrump: Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?
I get the impression the Supreme Court likes to uphold the law.
-
Matt Lauer worked at Fox News?
Yeah, unfortunately there are plenty of these creeps to go around, even at "lefty networks." I was just having some fun after rocketman invented a hashtag about Fox News being the bastion of fair and balanced reporting.
-
I get the impression the Supreme Court likes to uphold the law.
Imagine that, a part of the three-headed body of government acting independent of the executive. Now if the legislature could understand their role
-
The Roberts's opinion does not really address the legality or morality of DACA. It is more along the lines of ' you guys are so incompetent that I am going to vote against you.'
So, DACA could still be rescinded. If a competent argument could be mounted.
-
The Roberts's opinion does not really address the legality or morality of DACA. It is more along the lines of ' you guys are so incompetent that I am going to vote against you.'
So, DACA could still be rescinded. If a competent argument could be mounted.
But this way the Court won't hear anything prior to the next election.