Another Appellate Ruling

27 Comments for “Another Appellate Ruling”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    The Vox article fails to mention (in fact, obscures) that two arms of the Trump administration took opposite positions: The Justice Department opposed extending the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, while the EEOC (to which Trump reappointed Chai Feldblum, an openly lesbian commissioner) supported the expansion.

    It appears the backlash against the left that propelled Donald Trump into the presidency hit junk science (DEP) and junk justice (DOJ), both of which have agency heads that cleaned house with bleach, harder than it hit junk lawsuits (EEOC). This sounds exactly right to me. Perhaps that is because of Trump’s own history as an employer.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Trump won with fewer votes then Romney lost with. If there was a “backlash”, it was to both political parties as reflected in the poor showing all-around.

      Despite hysterical posts about a “backlash” followed quickly by “but Trump is still totally pro-gay”, Americans haven’t actually moved much.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I’m sure if you counted all the people who stayed home Trump would have won the popular vote : )

        Despite hysterical posts about a “backlash” followed quickly by “but Trump is still totally pro-gay”, Americans haven’t actually moved much.

        Make up your mind. Was there no backlash, or have Americans not moved much? You can’t have both. Surely you don’t mean to suggest it was Clinton who was the bad candidate?

        • posted by JohnInCA on

          Make up your mind. Was there no backlash, or have Americans not moved much?

          I’m curious what definition of “backlash” you’re using such that the it’s impossible to not have a backlash while American continues to move.

  2. posted by David Bauer on

    Religious freedom? Since when did the religious right care about religion or freedom, unless it was lying, cheating or stealing?

    • posted by Matthew on

      Are Islamic terrorists part of the “religious right”? They hate gays, they hate Jews, and they hate women. There’s nothing liberal about any of those attitudes in any sense of the word.

      • posted by David Bauler on

        Yes, but their is a difference between the religious right that (mostly) sticks to the legal process and those that do not.

        Those that dont, are more like the KKK. Violent Christian or Islamic fundamentalists are indeed like the KKK.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The Second Circuit decision is important, but the decision is complicated (in-part joinders with the majority, five concurrences and four dissents) and comes earlier in the process.

    I suspect that there is much more to come, as other circuits weigh in over time, and a lot depends on whether the Supreme Court will grant cert next session. The Court might, but it might deny cert in this instance and wait until a conflict has developed in the circuits before deciding the issue, as was the case with Obergefell. So we will have to wait and see.

    As to Stephen’s main point (“The Vox article fails to mention (in fact, obscures) that two arms of the Trump administration took opposite positions …“) I’m reminded of President Trump’s tweet about General McMaster:

    “General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems. Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”

    I don’t know anything about Vox, so I don’t understand why Vox is being held responsible to explain the administration’s internal conflicts, but Stephen’s complaint seems, uh, well, petty.

    I might note that if this case does get heard by the Supreme Court, the government’s spokesman will be the Solicitor General, not DOJ or EEOC. I don’t know how that will cut.

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Despite hysterical posts about a “backlash” followed quickly by “but Trump is still totally pro-gay”, Americans haven’t actually moved much.

    Speaking of which, the latest pathetic pronoucement from LCR’s Gregory DeAngelo:

    “This president is the first president to enter the White House who believes that marriage equality is settled law of the land. Barack Obama didn’t believe that when he entered the White House.”

    Uh, huh. The moron can’t do math, that’s for sure. Or maybe he’s a stable genius like the President, but doesn’t understand that years follow one another in sequence, 2009 coming before 2015, and 2017 coming after.

    • posted by Matthew on

      Remember Donnie McClurkin and “God is in the mix”? He pandered to homophobes to get elected, and don’t you deny it. In California, there were people who voted for both Obama and Prop 8. You can’t seriously expect us to forget that, especially after he commuted the sentence of a tranny traitor and vacated a successful LCR lawsuit (filed under Bush) that got DADT overturned.

      The pathetic one is you if you think the Slaveocrat Party or the Regressive Left is pro-gay in any way. Supporting the el-jibbity shakedown network is not pro-gay in any meaningful sense.

      • posted by Jorge on

        The Slav-eocrat Party? Are you a Russian?

        You talk too much about other people, not enough about what you want.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          What the hell does that mean? When did you turn into the Great Sphinx of IGF?

          Someone has the gumption to show up here with a comment that is NOT leftist trolling, and instead of recognizing a potential ally, you slag him? Et tu, Jorge?

          I can’t help picturing you in the hours you don’t devote to posting here. You’re sitting in a catacomb-like niche, crowned with a salad strainer. Every few minutes, you reach over your shoulder and flush.

          I take frequent breaks from this blog because of the frustration. I keep returning for the entertainment. It’s addictive. Like Doritos, or crack.

      • posted by David Bauler on

        We have a two party system with primaries. So, even when the national DNC says, “yes ” to equal means equal, party discipline is not universal.

        A few -contemporarily – Democrats at the Federal level are pressured by their constituents to lean right.

        They are still usually better then the GOP option in that district or State.

  5. posted by David Bauler on

    Frankly, I not sure Id given a pardon or clemency to Chelsea Manning . Were I President. I don’t look at him as doing something heroic.

    As for the LCR lawsuit, Congress needed to change the policy, not the courts. Substantive Military law is an area that the Congress and the President rarely share with the courts.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Remember Donnie McClurkin and “God is in the mix”? He pandered to homophobes to get elected, and don’t you deny it.

    President Obama was no hero, and that’s a fact. I knew the President when he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, and I worked on his 1996 State Senate campaign. I’m convinced that the President knew full well in 1996 and subsequently that marriage inequality was unconstitutional (in fact, he endorsed marriage equality in a response to a questionnaire from the Windy City Times during that campaign, an endorsement he later tried to fuzz over when he ran for President). President Obama’s political courage on the issue was, well, non-existent. So if you are telling me that President Obama doesn’t deserve a chapter in Profiles in Courage, its not news to me.

    In California, there were people who voted for both Obama and Prop 8.

    Of course. Polling has consistently shown that LGBT issues are a “voting issue” for only a small percentage of voters, and that is true for both parties.

    You can’t seriously expect us to forget that …

    I don’t expect anyone to forget our long struggle for equal treatment under the law, including the long and difficult battle to turn the Democratic Party around on marriage equality. I played an active role in that process, along with thousands of other gays and lesbians who worked within the Democratic Party. I was co-Chair of the LGBT Caucus of the DPW for about five years, working to ensure that both the Wisconsin and national Democratic party platforms included support for marriage equality. So I don’t forget how hard it was to turn the Democratic Party, and I don’t expect anyone else to forget. In fact, I hope that they don’t.

    … especially after he commuted the sentence of a tranny traitor …

    I didn’t agree with President Obama’s commutation when he did it, and I don’t now. I don’t understand your (and Stephen’s) obsession with transgenders, and I don’t agree with the way that both of you disparage transgendered folks, but we agree on the commutation.

    … and vacated a successful LCR lawsuit (filed under Bush) that got DADT overturned.

    President Obama did not vacate the LCR lawsuit (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Courts vacate lower court rulings; Presidents do not.

    Here’s a short history of the case: LCR brought the lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of DADT, in early 2010. In September 2010, a federal District Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and issued an injunction banning the military from enforcing DADT .The Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending a Ninth Circuit decision on the case. The Supreme Court denied an application by LCR to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay. Congress repealed DADT in December 2010, specifying that DADT would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the JCS certified that DADT repeal would not harm military readiness. The certification was given in July 2011. The Ninth Circuit vacated its stay immediately thereafter, and issued a per curium opinion in September 2011 that the legislative repeal had rendered the case moot.

    The pathetic one is you if you think the Slaveocrat Party or the Regressive Left is pro-gay in any way. Supporting the el-jibbity shakedown network is not pro-gay in any meaningful sense.

    Slogans are an excuse for thought. Try plain, ordinary language English, and we can discuss whatever you have in mind.

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    A re-post, properly (I hope) formatted this time around.

    Remember Donnie McClurkin and “God is in the mix”? He pandered to homophobes to get elected, and don’t you deny it.

    President Obama was no hero, and that’s a fact. I knew the President when he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, and I worked on his 1996 State Senate campaign. I’m convinced that the President knew full well in 1996 and subsequently that marriage inequality was unconstitutional (in fact, he endorsed marriage equality in a response to a questionnaire from the Windy City Times during that campaign, an endorsement he later tried to fuzz over when he ran for President). President Obama’s political courage on the issue was, well, non-existent. So if you are telling me that President Obama doesn’t deserve a chapter in Profiles in Courage, its not news to me.

    In California, there were people who voted for both Obama and Prop 8.

    Of course. Polling has consistently shown that LGBT issues are a “voting issue” for only a small percentage of voters, and that is true for both parties.

    You can’t seriously expect us to forget that …

    I don’t expect anyone to forget our long struggle for equal treatment under the law, including the long and difficult battle to turn the Democratic Party around on marriage equality. I played an active role in that process, along with thousands of other gays and lesbians who worked within the Democratic Party to achieve that end. I was co-Chair of the LGBT Caucus of the DPW for about five years, working to ensure that both the Wisconsin and national Democratic party platforms included support for marriage equality. So I don’t forget how hard it was to turn the Democratic Party, and I don’t expect anyone else to forget. In fact, I hope that they don’t.

    … especially after he commuted the sentence of a tranny traitor …

    I didn’t agree with President Obama’s commutation when he did it, and I don’t now. I don’t understand your (and Stephen’s) obsession with transgenders, and I don’t agree with the way both of you disparage transgendered folk, but we agree on the commutation.

    … and vacated a successful LCR lawsuit (filed under Bush) that got DADT overturned.

    President Obama did not vacate the LCR lawsuit (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States). Courts vacate lower court rulings; Presidents do not.

    Here’s a short history of the case: LCR brought the lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of DADT, in early 2010. In September 2010, a federal District Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and issued an injunction banning the military from enforcing DADT .The Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending a Ninth Circuit decision on the case. The Supreme Court denied an application by LCR to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay. Congress repealed DADT in December 2010, specifying that DADT would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the JCS certified that DADT repeal would not harm military readiness. The certification was given in July 2011. The Ninth Circuit vacated its stay immediately thereafter, and issued a per curium opinion in September 2011 that the legislative repeal had rendered the case moot.

    The pathetic one is you if you think the Slaveocrat Party or the Regressive Left is pro-gay in any way. Supporting the el-jibbity shakedown network is not pro-gay in any meaningful sense.

    Slogans are an excuse for thought. Try plain, ordinary language English, and we can discuss whatever you have in mind.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      BTW, I need to make a factual correction concerning Log Cabin Republican v. United States. The lawsuit was filed in early 2004, not early 2010. Unfortunately, spell checkers aren’t year checkers.

  8. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Are Islamic terrorists part of the “religious right”?

    No, not within the commonly understood meaning of the phrase, which refers to a political movement in the United States, composed primarily of fundamentalist/literalist Protestant Christians**, that advocates social (abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, etc.) and political conservativism, government-sponsored school prayer and religious monuments, and federal aid for religious groups and schools.

    ** The Catholic Church in the United States is allied on specific issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, but differs on “social justice” issues. Orthodox Jews, to some extent, support the social conservatism of the religious right, but differ on other issues and are a miniscule part of the population (less than one half of a percent) in the United States in any event As far as I know, adherents of Islam do not ally with the religious right and are not welcomed into the movement by the fundamentalist/literalist Protestant Christians that compose the driving force behind the movement.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Terrorists are largely young people who demand success in this lifetime and have low faith in politics. The religious right has the first part in common (which is why you see them produce some terrorists), but by and large they believe politics works. The Catholic Church seems to shun political and even social coalitions even when one might think there are obvious areas of agreement (and for very good reason from my perspective). If it’s not about war, humanitarianism, or abortion, it seems to have its head in the clouds.

      • posted by Jorge on

        The religious right has the first part in common…

        Could have edited that better. I mean the demanding political success part, not their age (that part’s the alt-right).

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        If it’s not about war, humanitarianism, or abortion, it seems to have its head in the clouds.

        You’re joking, right? They’ve quieted down on it in the US, but they were pretty involved in fights against marriage equality, civil unions, hate-crime laws, non-discrimination laws, repealling sodomy laws… name an LGBT issue and the Catholic church took an anti-LGBT stance.

        Heck, they’ve explicitly threatened to shutter their “humanitarian services” as punishment for a state not meeting their demands. The church has never been “above” politics.

  9. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Jorge, I would not include terrorists of any religious persuasion within the commonly understood meaning of the “religious right”.

    Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, and while the “religious right” is focused almost exclusively on obtaining political power, the movement has no track record of using violent means to obtain that power.

    As you noted in an earlier comment, that differentiates the “religious right” movement from other groups within the radical fringe of American conservative politics that do use violence as a means to a political end.

    The line between violence and the “religious right” is not always a bright white line, though, as I’ll be the first to acknowledge. I think that the heated rhetoric of “religious right” leaders provides cover for the violent fringe, and may well influence the unhinged in the direction of violence. As Rav Abraham Heschel noted in the context of anti-Semitism, “Speech has power. Words do not fade. What starts in a sound, ends in a deed.”

  10. posted by Lori Heine on

    “Trolling is trolling.”

    I could point out that it takes one to know one. But then again, Jorge, you’re so irrational that half the time nobody can figure out what the hell you’re saying.

  11. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    “Trolling is trolling.”

    My view is that Matthew is the most authentic conservative voice we’ve had on IGF since NorthDallasThirty. Buckley, Will, Sowell, Olson, Krauthammer, Stossel and other establishment conservatives — the tassel loafer conservatives — hid the raw core of conservative thinking under a patina of modulated and temperate, writing, seemingly rational and reasoned. Matthew’s comments cut through the facade and get to the nub.

  12. posted by david Bauler on

    1. A good argument can be made that ‘sex’ covers sexual orientation in certain cases. I have also seen good arguments against that. I do not expect to see too many good arguments presented here, but I have read them.

    2. Getting a new, more specific, Congressional law is tough. Some of it is party based. Some of it is geographic based. Their are certain States and certain Congressional districts where supporting a gay rights bill — any gay rights bill — is seen as a political liability.

    This is why getting a Democratic-majority (at Federal level) doesnt remove all of the hurdles. It removes some big ones, but any gay rights bill can be a political liability in certain places (where the only other viable option is going to have a worse record).

  13. posted by david Bauler on

    —Are Islamic terrorists part of the “religious right”?

    Islam is to terrorism, as Christianity is to the KKK. When we talk about the “religious right” in America, we generally talk about fundamentalist-traditionalist social conservatives who seek to advance their views through legal methods.

    In contrast, the KKK and other groups use illegal methods (especially violent methods). It is not also a clear line.

Comments are closed.