FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Actually . . . Kavanaugh at least rebutted Alito.
After Alito wrote that . . .
The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.
Kavanaugh rebutted with . . .
Applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.
Then what is his rationale for having dissented? Same as Alito's -- the law doesn't spell out specific protections for LGBTQ. So he's basically saying he doesn't agree with a blanket "if it's not in there, the law doesn't cover it" interpretation. Why? Because it leaves him room for judicial activism when he wants to pursue a conservative change of law?
Maybe. But at least he wrote this:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result.
After Alito wrote that . . .
The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.
Kavanaugh rebutted with . . .
Applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.
Then what is his rationale for having dissented? Same as Alito's -- the law doesn't spell out specific protections for LGBTQ. So he's basically saying he doesn't agree with a blanket "if it's not in there, the law doesn't cover it" interpretation. Why? Because it leaves him room for judicial activism when he wants to pursue a conservative change of law?
Maybe. But at least he wrote this:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result.