Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

As an aside, the provision on sex might not even have made it in there if a racist hadn't been concerned that white women might have fewer rights than black men and women.

As Gorsuch writes, what matters is that the discriminators would not make this decision but for sex. That's what's in the text of the law. There's a pretense by Alito and Thomas that Gorsuch changed the meaning of sex, which he clearly did not, and that you can discriminate on gender without targeting sex, which doesn't make a lick of sense. (emphasis added)

The funny thing is of course that pedophilia and what not are also sexual orientations (how would you argue that they are not?), so does it really serve a sensible purpose to explicitly normalise any and all sexual orientations?

ersi said on 2022-01-06, 00:56:29: "As to 'interpreting' that Oakdale has an issue with, it so happens that whenever you read a text, you are interpreting it. Inevitably. It is impossible to not interpret."

It's quite literally the job of the courts to interpret the law. That's what they're there for. Otherwise they'd serve no purpose.

There's a pretense by Alito and Thomas that Gorsuch changed the meaning of sex, which he clearly did not, and that you can discriminate on gender without targeting sex, which doesn't make a lick of sense.

The list is bad form for rights that everyone should have. The list would be a better form for necessary distinctions to be made, but the point of this law is "don't discriminate", instead of "do differentiate". Normally such laws employ an exception list instead, e.g "everybody is equal, except high state officials have privilege, legal might has superiority and bigger capital has priority." I.e.a negative list, not a positive list.

All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the
grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be
permitted.

I reject the contention of obscurity in language usage that makes personal interpretation the standard: that's no standard at all.

But as ersi points out,

What privileges your interpretation?

When the statute in question uses language easily understood on the basis of documented common usage and supported by contemporaneous reference works, what justifies the "new" interpretation?

It's telling that you'd rehash your example of the law against kidnapping from the 1600s to the 1900s:
How do you justify making the means of transport a "but-for"  element of the crime? (Remind me, please...)

Oakdale, the problem is far beyond the interpretation of the word "sex". Luckily for Title VII, it specifies "in the workplace", so everything outside the workplace should be a non-issue.

The law is messed up on this point, not on the word level, but on the section level or even on the principle level. Those whose job is to apply/interpret the law as written are f'd, fairly literally. Some judges try their best to not be ridiculous. The majority try their usual veiling of ulterior motives. None of them will admit the law is letting them down.

DC Diary
By Oliver Wiseman

Judge Jackson’s patriotic rebuke to the left

As confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson enter their third day, coverage has focused more on the questions she has been asked than the answers she has given. Whether it’s Josh Hawley’s scrutiny of Jackson’s sentencing for sex offenders or Ted Cruz quizzing her on Critical Race Theory, the most bad-blooded argument over this week’s Senate drama has concerned the legitimate parameters of these presidential hopefuls’ questioning.

To bypass that mostly unedifying debate, and instead to focus on Jackson’s answers, has been a heartening experience. Ever since she was introduced by Biden at the White House last month, Jackson has seemed a reassuringly earnest, patriotic and accomplished figure. And in her prepared statements, both at the White House and on the Hill, Jackson has painted a picture of America, its legal traditions, and her family story that are noticeably out of step with the contemporary left.

“The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known,” said Jackson when she spoke at the White House. It was the start of a quietly subversive trend.

(more)

The course Jackson has charted since her introduction on the biggest stage in American political life is lost in both the overblown attempts by Republicans to paint Jackson as a CRT-toting radical and the left’s uncritical “yasss-queen” embrace of a new celebrity-public figure. But the contrast between Jackson and the prevailing mood in the party of the president who nominated her matters. Contrast Jackson’s remarks with, for example, Biden’s glib comments about “Jim Crow on steroids.” That tells you all you need to know — about both a cynical president and the woman set to be America’s newest Supreme Court justice.

(from The Spectator)

Whatever you think best

Quote

DC Diary
By Oliver Wiseman

[...]

To bypass that mostly unedifying debate, [...]

(Wrong thread, ersi... But: Close Enough for government work, eh? Partisanship, partisanship all the way down! Right? )

You have nothing relevant to say about climate in any thread.

More than 30 advocacy organizations—including MoveOn, the American Federation of Teachers and Indivisible—sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Friday calling for it to “immediately” hold a hearing on imposing a code of ethics for the Supreme Court in light of Ginni Thomas’ text messages, as justices aren’t bound to follow the one in place for lower federal judges.

Pointing to both Thomas and his wife as well as other justices’ conduct, the groups said the lack of a code of ethics for justices is a “major concern for the country,” and called for lawmakers “to rein in a Supreme Court that has utterly failed to police the conduct of its own members.”

(from the Forbes article you linked to, Colonel...)

I am dismayed that someone [...] can read what Gorsuch wrote as well as what Alito wrote and not see that Alito is at best pretending Gorsuch didn't already more than disprove all his arguments with ample examples and precedents. There are no "word games" here, only proper applied philosophy based on the plain meaning of words.

As Alito documented, multiple Congresses have rejected amending (updating, of course...) Title VII to include sexual preference and sexual orientation (gender expression)...

...the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted...

There is only a reason to do such a thing when there is doubt.

that the vice president can decide which electoral college votes to count and which ones not?

(Don't be surprised, ersi: I'm often at odds with academic lawyers; you'd be amazed at some of the tripe law professors come up with! )

@ersi: From whence comes your expertise? (And smug attitude? Are you just naturally disagreeable?)

You little care about ontology.

I am making a great career out of my expertise - outside the academic field that I had trained for and hoped would become my career.

I hope you enjoy your work! (Really.)

But I can't help but ask, weren't you previously some sort of cross between a propagandist and a advertising consultant?

Eastman broke no laws,...

The sole topic that can be evidently discussed with you is US constitutional law. Just that - not political events, not history, just the points of law and court decisions. This is way too narrow.

You take the Titles to be generic and blanket bans on discrimination, I presume?    That's not the case.

Again, read Gorsuch Alito. His textualism is the only tenable position, and the US Supreme Court is almost always textualist

they don't spell out details as to what they think the consequences may or may not be because that would be unenforceable madness with a capricious sieve of a legal system

Trump belonged to prison already in the 80's, in my not so humble opinion. [...] By now his list of crimes is so long and grave that one can judge the merits of US legal system based on the fact that Trump has remained unconvicted to this day.

I'd call it (Gorsuch's opinion) an example of hyper-textualism... But you'd contend that the most a Justice can wring out of the language is what should apply?