Transgender fight could prove major test for Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The fight over civil rights protections for transgender people could prove to be a major test for the Supreme Court, particularly its conservative wing, as justices weigh whether to take up the issue this term.
The court has a request before it to hear a case challenging whether civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in employment extend to transgender workers.
It’s a dispute that may have a significant impact on the Trump administration’s reported plans to exclude federal protections for transgender people by narrowly defining gender.
The New York Times reported last week that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is leading an effort to write a rule that defines gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, a move that would affect civil rights laws banning gender discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.
While the pending case before the justices deals with civil rights in the workplace, experts say a Supreme Court ruling could very well affect the administration’s planned gender rule.
“If the Supreme Court took it and held what the majority of courts are holding -- that sex discrimination includes transgender people -- the administration would be hard pressed to go ahead with that rule,” said Diana Flynn, litigation director at Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for LGBT rights.
Several federal statutes prohibit sex discrimination in employment, education and health care, and legal analysts say each one has the same underlying language and concept.
“Courts tend very strongly to read them together,” said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality. “A ruling under one law would be very likely to impact other laws.”
The case pending before the Supreme Court centers on Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who alleges she was fired from her job as a funeral director and embalmer after she told her employer she would begin living and working openly as a woman.
Ruling in her favor, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII -- the law that bans discrimination based on sex in employment.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Stephens, says there’s no need for the Supreme Court to take the case because the majority of courts have issued rulings in line with the 6th Circuit.
“The Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits agree with the Sixth Circuit’s alternative holding for respondents that when a decision maker discriminates against someone for being transgender, that discrimination is inherently based on sex,” the ACLU argued in its brief.
If the justices decide to weigh in, it could challenge the ideals of conservatives on the bench like Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who prides himself on basing his decisions on the text of the law.
Transgender advocates say you can’t discriminate against someone who is transgender without thinking about their sex.
“I think it would hypocritical in the extreme for justices, who claim to be texturalists, to rule against Aimee Stephens,” said Tobin.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the funeral home in its appeal, disagrees.
“The claim rests on a faulty premise,” said Jim Campbell, a senior counsel at ADF. “Title VII does not define sex and should be given its understanding of when it was defined in 1964.”
Back then, he said, sex referred to male or female based on biology and physiology.
ADF’s argument relies heavily on a 2007 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said discrimination on the basis of transgender status is not a violation of Title VII.
The Department of Justice Department (DOJ) also argued in a brief last week that Title VII does not apply to discrimination against an individual based on his or her gender identity. DOJ said justices should first take up two other pending cases challenging whether anti-discrimination protections in Title VII extend to sexual orientation.
Transgender advocates say Stephens should prevail even if the justices take the case because the 6th Circuit ruled that the funeral home discriminated against Stephens based on a sex stereotype.
“Circuit courts have uniformly agreed that all people, including those who are transgender, may bring sex discrimination claims under Title VII if their employers discriminate against them because of sex stereotypes related to behavior and appearance,” ACLU argued.
There’s no guarantee the justices will agree to hear the dispute. Court watchers have said the justices may try to avoid weighing politically charged issues after the highly partisan confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
Chief Justice John Roberts stressed the importance of an independent judiciary in a speech earlier this month at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“Now the court has from time to time erred and erred greatly, but when it has it has been because the court yielded to political pressure,” he said.
ADF’s Campbell said Dec. 3 is the earliest the justices could announce a decision on whether to take up the Stephens case.
As for an administration rule narrowly defining sex, that could take several months at a minimum.
Under the federal rulemaking process, HHS would have to propose a rule, accept and review public comments and then issue a final regulation.
While advocacy groups like the Transgender Law Center have vowed to fight any rule that attempts to remove legal protections for transgender people, they will have to wait for a finalized rule before taking legal action
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
105 visitors
Chief Justice John Roberts stressed the importance of an independent judiciary in a speech earlier this month at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“Now the court has from time to time erred and erred greatly, but when it has it has been because the court yielded to political pressure,” he said.
Yup
Hi Vic! Sounds like you're once again trying to troll on LGBT legal issues when you haven't even read the case summaries and don't know what the case is actually about, much less what appealable issues there might be.
Perhaps you should stop getting your info from anti-LGBT hate groups? FYI this case doesn't support or enable your anti-trans agenda.
"
“The claim rests on a faulty premise,” said Jim Campbell, a senior counsel at ADF. “Title VII does not define sex and should be given its understanding of when it was defined in 1964.”
Back then, he said, sex referred to male or female based on biology and physiology.
ADF’s argument relies heavily on a 2007 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said discrimination on the basis of transgender status is not a violation of Title VII."
In Short the SCOTUS might simple state " Lets Keep It Simple Stupid ( KISS )" and stay with what the Majority, Medical Experts, Geneticists and Even Evolutionist Know, that Gender is a Fundamental division for Lifes Existence!
Male And Female For Survivability. Anything Else Equals Extinction!
See $$$ Cost to placate those on extinctions Path!
Say what you want, baby they were born this way. If you read the article, they were performing surgery on babies to make them appear, so called, normal. It often doesn't work.
They have a right to be who they are and more importantly, the gender they know they are.
It is not up for a court, a President or congress to decide.
Those are extremely rare cases. That has nothing to do with biologically normal men and women who choose to identify as the opposite sex and force others to play along.
I would say one in two thousand is no small number.
No matter how one wants to justify it, it is drawing a line.
An impossible line.
No. She is legally a female named Caitlyn.
A lot of women cannot do that. What the hell does that have to do with the legal rights of Caitlyn to be what she says she is?
NOTHING.
And still a conservative republican as well.
she is a guy, legally named caitlyn, with mental issues.
but, we are all crazy in our own ways... LOL
WTF? You have GOT to be kidding, that is seriously one of the most asinine comments I've ever seen regarding women. And you think you have a right to decide our healthcare and moral values as well?
So, when a woman goes through Menopause or, for one reason or, another can no longer have children she is no longer a woman? When a woman cannot for some reason, usually health reasons or, because she cannot produce enough milk to suckle her child, she is no longer a woman? Ok, got it. My mother and, sisters will be highly disappointed to learn the quit being women when this happened to them.
Who deeply regrets her support for Trump and recently retracted it due to Trump's ongoing efforts to harm transgender folks. The reality is that the main reason she supported him was because she wanted the tax cut for the rich.
is that what you are basing your argument on ? how many women can't get pregnant nor carry a child and give birth etc ? do you know how many infertile women there are that can't get pregnant, or carry the child and give birth etc ?
Correction: HE is a guy, legally named Caitlyn, with mental issues.
I think your comment is a ToS violation. Thanks for playing.
Lets hope that the SCOTUS makes the right decision. Just because lower courts bend to whatever trendy political winds are blowing doesn't make it right to force everyone to bow down to crackpot science.
Should parents be forced to make a choice on babies?
The courts should leave well enough alone if not tell everyone else to just stay out of it.
Say what you want, you all are advocating making decisions for people you know nothing about.
I know about basic concepts such as two distinct genders and no politicians or courts are going to force me to accept a man in drag as a woman.
Obviously you don't.
I linked an article that one in two thousand have some sort of condition.
It sealed the deal for me, boiling it all down to drag queens, that one has either no argument or no knowledge of facts.
I'm sure there's exceptions that can be made for the small number of REAL cases of gender reassignment where there's some sort of defect. That doesn't justify forcing millions of people to accept one confused persons fantasy about being the opposite sex.
Calling it a defect is rude.
No one is calling for you or anyone to accept anything. In fact it seems the opposite, trying to force everyone into what you all consider acceptable categories.
Your acception is neither required nor desired.
Even a law that would have a negative impact on a few is a bad law. There are no acceptable casualties.
People being in the inappropriate bathroom/ locker room/ ladies gym from their real gender is rude. The only acceptable gender categories werent created by me. They were decided by nature and only foolish human arrogance tries to upset that.
There seems to be a debate on the issue. You say it's a right.
The case in question involves a charge of discrimination in the work place. Should we not have the SCOTUS hear it?
I am wondering why the DOJ has to be involved.
Pushing the presidents narrative. They are looking for the right to discriminate.
That is sickening coming from our highest offices.
Did you say that when the Court got involved in Marriage?
Sorry but I don't equate equality to discrimination. Not even close.
You didn't answer...Why?
E.A Can you please help me.
Where in Evolution " Equality " a Standard?
and if it is NOT what does that say about that misplaced Notion?
is Marriage a secular legal right ?
Because you are trying to equate two totally different things. They have nothing to do with each other other than you trying to make it a narrative.
Funny, your'e another who can't answer the question....Marriage became a national right for both straight & same sex couples in 2015....How does that relate to my question?
Yes they do. We are talking about extending rights. Are you saying you didn't want "Obergefell" to go before the Court?
i'm wondering how you are equating an issue of "civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in employment" with an issue of the secular legal right of Marriage. One issue is discrimination in the workplace or employment, the other is Marriage equality. I'm not sure i understand the connection you are trying to make.
What is the connection? Right now there is a dispute about whether the word sex applies to transgenders. Before there was a dispute about whether there was a certain right for same sex couples. Both issues were in dispute. The ACLU was all guns blazing to get one before the highest Court in the land and now refuse to go there. Don't they care about the transgender case?
That is an absurd point of view. By that logic we should not try to correct any medical condition.
What is the constitutional justification for denying them rights?
E.A BINGO!!!!
Oh, you think you hit some big point there? It is a medical condition for which the treatment is hormone therapy and may include gender reassignment.
denying or refusing to extend?
Please read Post # 7.1.2
E.A Read with Care::
Medical Condition::
DNA Shows Gender, so no need for " Gender reassignment "
" Gender Reassignment " is a Psychological condition brought about by misuse of a Medical Condition and Twisting of " God Evolution " plan :-)
Equality is just that. People being treated the same. People having the same rights under the law.
For our DOJ to actually argue for discrimination is a sad day. Breaking it down to black and white, that is all this is. The right to discriminate against transgender/intersex people.
For those that profess a love of freedom, this is doing the opposite. I guess, according to some, freedom from discrimination is only held in regard to people that fit a certain definition or class.
FFS What god?
Read the article I posted above.
A child was born with both xx and xy chromosomes.
You all are talking about putting people in limbo, acting like they have no rights.
Based on WHAT justification?
E.A Ahh Pardon me, you are not an " evolutionist "?
The wording of Title VII
E.A Read the LAW an Oddity a Law does not make!!
Which has been adjudicated. The courts have sided with Transgender. I do not see your legal justification for changing the definition of sex to exclude transgender people.
The federal government doesn't seem to have a legitimate interest in what gender people claim.
my beliefs are irrelevant to the question. DO you understand this country is founded on the freedom of religion and that there are literally thousands of different belief systems.
So which god.
There is a little problem with that. The decision has been appealed (and there is another Court disputing it):
"Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the funeral home in its appeal, disagrees.
“The claim rests on a faulty premise,” said Jim Campbell, a senior counsel at ADF. “Title VII does not define sex and should be given its understanding of when it was defined in 1964.”
Back then, he said, sex referred to male or female based on biology and physiology.
ADF’s argument relies heavily on a 2007 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said discrimination on the basis of transgender status is not a violation of Title VII."
E.A is that an Oxymoron? Contradiction? Basic comprehension Failure?
What is good for the Goose is not for the Gender?
Just to assist Take the " God " of your Choice and " lets Tango "!!!!
I chose no god. Go.
So you do not have a legal argument. Got it.
Kavanaugh made it clear he would adhere to precedent. But we all know he was lying.
I don't think he's going to come out on your side. Time will tell.
E.A You Mentioned God.
You " No God " Choice leaves you sitting on a Picket Fence, till " The Cows Come Home " that get more and more uncomfortable!!
Have a Great Time.
Learn how to Tango! :-)
Lol, That's just it - I do! It is you who argue on the side of what is morally right. We are nothing without the rule of law
You told me to choose what point to argue from. The Constitution is a secular document. God has nothing to do with the justifications of human rights in a secular society.
It is you who cannot handle tangoing without your religious bias.
Personally, I just go in there to pee or bend a fresh biscuit, most are not going into a public bathroom to get laid. Besides, as Dr. Ford proved, even if a woman was sexually assaulted in a bathroom, you wouldn't believe her anyway.
Really? My argument is about the constitutional rights of Americans. I've said nothing of morality.
That's your sides bailiwick.
Can you list all the decisions made by Kavanaugh that did not cite precedent?
And were some of them not upheld by SCOTUS?
E.A Is it??
Here is the " Sweet and the Short "
God says NO
The " Constitution " which is " we the people " says NO
So who is Bigoted and Biased?
Ahh yes and even Evolution says NO :-)
Ya, Really! You started off by saying "What is the constitutional justification for denying them rights? " That is a moral argument
So, you would be alright with this person being in the same locker room as your mother, sister, wife, daughter?
I was thinking along the lines about having this one in mine:
Sounds like you are trying to legislate your own morality.
What does Title VII say? That is all I care about.
RMANDO I see you don't want to answer this so, I must assume that the answer would be no, you wouldn't want to see him in the same locker room as one of your female relatives yet, this man was born a "biological" woman or, what the Transgender community would call a female to male Transgender.
Where does the Constitution say no? Where does evolution say no? Evolution actually says quite the opposite. Since we have documented evidence that transgenders have always existed...how do you figure that evolution says no?
What god says no?
Here's some more attractive women for you to oogle.
That's ok, I prefer real women in a real world. You can look at 'em
E.A YOU and I have had this Myriads of Times so let not rehash it to Bore this Forum, do a search and read what we have already Covered!
Be a Good Girl Now!
For the Forum: See " Bigbang Vs Creation " you can google it and it show you where and how, and as an alternative Photobucket have Fun!
[deleted]
[deleted]
We are done. I do not take that level of condescension from anyone.
Don't reply to me again.
I'm straight and married. The point is if you didn't know they were trans, you would not know it in passing in a public restroom.
E.A if YOU ask I will Reply!!
Refrain from Asking!!!!
That is addressed to me? I couldn't care less. All I care about is that our laws mean something.
Sounds very chauvinistic. Not cool.
The law does mean something. Someone is seeking to get that changed so that it doesn't apply to a specific constituency.
That seems just fine to you.
Who? Where?
E.A Is it, and why is that?
How Long do you know Fireryone?
Thank you. Exactly how it came across.
How about the states in the law suit this seed is about.
States? This involves an employer and a terminated employee, right?
I'll catch you tomorrow. Have a good one.
The DOJ is NOT the Court.
It's not extending rights. It's recognizing that a minority has those rights too. Rights are inalienable.
Who has called for the Court not to hear the case?
mental conditions included yes?
when the junk does not match the mind.
it is not the junks fault. and cutting off body parts does not fix a mind.
science needs to get to work and fix the mental problem.
The issue was actually settled in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins. Your side lost back then and there's been a huge amount of supporting court dicta since then, as well as a greater scientific understanding of gender. It will be interesting to see if and how the bigoted conservatives on SCOTUS try to sidestep that precedent.
That's a truly moronic comment given that the ACLU represented the plaintiff in the 6th Circuit case, and they're correct that there's no need for SCOTUS to grant cert to the appeal since the 6th Circuit already ruled the right way and in accord with the Price Waterhouse v Hopkins precedent.
It sounds like you don't even understand the basics of your own seed or who the various parties are. LOL.
Title VII per current SCOTUS interpretation and current precedent says that gender stereotypes and gender role stereotypes are an impermissible basis for a company to make employment decisions. Transgender folks clearly fall within the scope of that.
In 1964 there was no concept of "transgender". Thanks for playing
Not yet
Not according to the 10th Circuit
Who has called for the Court not to hear the case?
Haven't you read the article. Here let me make it easy:
"The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Stephens, says there’s no need for the Supreme Court to take the case because the majority of courts have issued rulings in line with the 6th Circuit."
My side? I'm actually on the side of the law & the Constitution.
E.A Got that right all those covered by the LAW, Including the Unborn and the elderly!
The Right to Life Precludes ALL else, Pursuit of Happiness, has a limitation to not interfere with the " Right to life ".
Liberty can not be at the cost of the previous Two!
Yes, thank you so much for making it easy to see that your claim in your 7 comment is utter BULLSHIT.
Stating that there is 'no need' for the SCOTUS to hear the case is not 'refusing to advance the case'.
yes, from a legal standpoint.
it was an issue of recognizing rights for a minority.
looks like you didn't read the article - it clearly states:
doesn't look like the ACLU "refuses" to go to SCOTUS - looks like they are stating it's a waste of SCOTUS's time since majority of courts already ruled in line with the 6th circuit. Maybe you are just hopeful it'll go to SCOTUS in an effort to get Title VII to not cover transgender individuals ?
See that's the problem. Science is the reason that it is no longer considered a mental defect but instead a medical condition for which treatment is available and effective.
Sounds like you have difficulty grasping how our courts work since you already lost on the underlying issue in 1989. Moreover the case is not even about whether transgender folks are protected against employment discrimination under Title VII, they clearly are.
What the ADF hate group and the bigoted states are arguing isn't what you apparently think they're arguing (that Title VII and the EEOC control this issue), but rather that they're exempt from those regulations because the employer is superstitious. Note that the ONLY reason the district court initially ruled for the employer was because they erroneously assumed that the employee was covered under a ministerial exemption which allows sex discrimination which would otherwise be unlawful. The appeals court correctly reversed that erroneous ruling.
The other aspect is that the bigoted business granted a clothing allowance to male but not female employees, and the appeals court reversed that erroneous part too.
At best your only hope for SCOTUS to agree to hear the case and rule for the dumb bigots would be if the ADF could prove that the funeral home worker had ministerial duties (she didn't), and somehow magically rule that a business can discriminate based on sex in the benefits it provides its employees, and that's even less likely to happen.
How does someone else being transgender personally affect your life? How are they harming you? If you want the SCOTUS to rule in your favor on this because, "they are icky", you may be really disappointed.
Moral argument. If we decide cases that way, we can discard the Constitution.
They aren't harming anyone. They are just scary since they don't fit the norms.
Moral argument
E.A The National Budget Office might disagree with that Over 36 Billion a Year, I am sure there are needy families that can make better use of that, so is that not " harming"?
Could be!
Its a Constitutional argument. They do not harm you, you have a desire to deny them right to be who and what they claim. There is no legal argument for denying them that right.
Then let's have the SCOTUS settle it
What BS is this?
I think that is up to them, not us.
E.A Hmm Biased Bigoted?
Tell me " Gender reassignment " has No Costs attached to it?
Gender Dystopia, has no Community Costs?
No Medical Costs to misusing Body Cavities?
I know how you feel. Sorry....You see, when Courts differ on the text of the law, the SCOTUS may feel the need to clarify.
E.A WOW!!!
And WOW!! Again!!
Scotus is not Under the " Constitutional " arrangement? Who sets UP the Constitution if " We the People " do not?
Most the courts agreed.
What does that have to do with whether or not they take up a case?
You do know they don't take on every case...right?
It only takes one to disagree, then we need clarification
E.A Tell US please the SCOTUS takes their Cues from where?
is it Mickey Mouse and the Sever Dwarfs?
Na, the only people who need clarification are those who seek to strip them of their rights.
So you are stating that Title VII covers them in the work place? That is a specific right listed there?
I don't disagree with you Vic, and that is why morals cannot be legislated. From an amoral standpoint, there is no reason to roll back transgender protections. I am not trans at all, in fact I will admit that I don't fully understand it, but, they aren't harming me, they do not affect my way of life, so I don't see why they shouldn't be given the same protections as you and I share. Just my point of view.
I agree with the idea of trying to do the right thing. The one issue I have with what you said is that morals cannot be legislated. If the majority dosen't get congress to do what they consider morally right, then it won't be reflected in the law. AND If others get the Court to become a legislative body - then we have anarchy.
What "moral argument"? As the court said in a distantly related case, "this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code."
Maybe you first need to bone up on the relevant employment law precedents? Your side already lost the key one almost 30 years ago.
Sorry but there's got to be a rational basis for any such law, it can't be just the animus of the majority against a disfavored minority. See Romer v Evans for details.
I'm sorry too. That is what progressives can't accept. All changes to the law must be made by Congress and Congress act's by the will of the majority. I suppose that is why liberals have used judicial activism for so long.
This is what regressives can't accept, including a group under the protection of the Constitution does NOT change the law OR the Constitution. If a law is Unconstitutional, it is Unconstitutional from the SECOND it was passed. If a law grants protections, recognizing that a minority is included in those protections does NOT change the law.
BTFW, do you recognize that regressives have used 'judicial activism' instead of the Congress to 'change' the rulings in Roe and Obergefell and the effects of the provisions of the ACA?
You consider opinions that don't go your way to be judicial activism.
Sounds like you have difficulty grasping that all persons in the US receive the equal protection of the law including the civil rights act. There's no clause in Title VII which says that all persons are protected from sex-based discrimination EXCEPT transgender folks or anyone else dumb bigots currently hate.
Plus it's abundantly clear you don't actually understand what this case is about. You obviously never read the original case or the appeals court ruling. You didn't even read the case summary, you just went off based on what an anti-LGBT hate group told you to do.
Is the day far off when some will insist that all companies have a hiring quota for these folks?
Funny, I recall the ACLU pushing for "Loving v Virginia". Now they don't want high profile social cases to go to the Supreme Court?
Sounds like you don't understand how the courts or the law work. Why would the ACLU support an appeal of a case they won?
They wouldn't do that, but if they are confident that the lower Court's ruling would hold up, they wouldn't be arguing that the SCOTUS shouldn't take it on either. Too logical?
Actually NO, merely obtuse.
It is the JOB of the Respondents attorneys to argue that the ruling by the lower Court was rightly decided and is not WORTHY of a hearing @ the SCOTUS.
"The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio and Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch have filed suit on behalf of Jim Obergefell and David Michener, two widowers, and Robert Grunn, a funeral director, in a challenge to the Ohio constitutional and statutory marriage recognition bans."
Suddenly the ACLU refuses to advance a case of discrimination against a transgender to the SCOTUS.....Why?
E.A Could it be because they KNOW they have " No Legal Right " and hence their False Mantra " Constitutional Rights " is a Fairytale?
again, how do you justify denying a tax paying American rights granted by the Constitution?
Ya, I'm gonna give the answer some here are trying to avoid: The ACLU ran to the SCOTUS when they knew they had a stacked deck waiting for them. This time the word sex will be defined as it is in a dictionary AND in Title VII
E.A As it Should be " Natural " Logical, and DNA Backed ALL the way!!
No Twisting, No Manipulation just " as it should be "!
and for some " As God Evolution wants it "
That sounds like a moral argument?
E.A Read with care, there is NO such " Constitutional Right "!
There are all kinds of constitutional rights. You want to deny them to Transgender. I want to know what your justification is. You don't have one....That's apparent.
If you don't think this is about denying them rights, what the hell do you think this is about?
Who will be next on 'the block?' Asians? Native Americans?
Perhaps it would behoove you to review that whole 'equal protection under the law' thingy...
E.A Yes it WOULD, as the text was for Males and Females, please read it with care!
The 14th Amendment, which includes the equal protection clause, is gender NEUTRAL, it doesn't contain the text 'males' OR 'females', it states 'person/persons'.
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
E.A Yes it IS and Nowhere does " Person " mean anything other then Male and Female!
Utterly false statement. Servitude of Slavery was once protected under US Constitutional Law.
Here is another. The Volstead Act of 1919.
There are many more. The summation you professed is not only absurd, it is also absurd.
There isn't enough mustard on the planet for the pretzel you need to twist yourself into to try to defend your posit.
E.A No Need the SCOTUS will help!! :-)
Isn't it bit of a delusion of grandeur to think that the SCOTUS will give you an adequate supply your condiments?
Exactly HOW has the ACLU 'refused to advance' this case? Please be specific.
BTW, did you notice in your seed that it quotes the brief submitted to the SCOTUS by the ACLU for this case.
Nope, transgender rights will not be the 'big test' for the court.
The 'Big Test' will come when the court must decide whether the Executive Branch deserves protections that places ( it ) above the law.
You wish! No, the big test will be overturning "Chevron"
E.A LOL I have to have a hearty LAUGH on this one!!!
Please tell us who is the " Law " and where does it/he/she come from?
Constitutional, State, Local and Civil Laws are all subject to determinant cause and legality by the US Supreme Court---if those questions are ever brought before it.
Sure. Laugh. Think Erdogan, Putin and even that darling Lil' Kim.
E.A Sure Dream ALL you like , but tell me who SETS those LAWS?
and what are those given from the Lesser Laws and why?
Lesser laws? You have no idea what your are talking about. Bye.
E.A OK Thank You::
I Make this comment The Military, what Civil Laws does it act under?
ALL LEO Officers, serve under what Protection and how is it meted out.
If those Branches do not have " Special Protections ": NONE will serve in them, that is just a mere example. Bye bye!!
NOTE: if every justice on the court wanted the lower courts decision to stand?
the supreme court would not have picked it up to begin with.
justices only pick up cases with the intent of overturning them. (not affirming them)
the lower courts decision will not stand.
judges can legally change a persons name....
but they do not get to change peoples "sex" from that which was recorded at birth.
Cheers
Ummmm.....you apparently don't understand what's happening since SCOTUS hasn't granted cert yet. They haven't decided to hear the appeal from the ADF hate group and the bigoted red states at all. However they only need 4 votes for cert so it could happen although I doubt the final outcome will be to your liking.
regardless what I like... the 6th circuit is not going to get to redefine Title VII
Ummm.....they didn't.
You obviously don't even comprehend what the case was about, and it's equally obvious that both you and the seeder think that transgender folks should be denied the civil rights protections which the CRA guarantees all persons. So you must oppose the 14th Amendment....something which many conservatives oppose. And you also oppose the clear language of the 1964 CRA and its amendments.
If you actually knew what the case was about I doubt you'd support your own position. Are you saying that a business can grant an employee benefit to males and refuse that same benefit to females?
weird science.
instead of the words coming out of the head.... let's just measure the head instead.
measure the width of the shoulders.
measure the width of the head not the hair
if you can fit three of those heads on those shoulders? it is a guy.
if you can not fit three of those heads on those shoulders? it is a girl.
every good artist knows this as well.
cheers