Headed Back to the High Court


———————

———————

8 Comments for “Headed Back to the High Court”

  1. posted by David Bauler on

    Doesn’t Cato object to civil rights in general? Don’t they feel that they are against the magical free market?

    Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    How sweet, a siren song about Orrin Hatch just in time for the holidays.

    It is a fine invitation to parse the statements of such a person.

    As a GOP Senator, Hatch wants to negotiate on the grounds of “invidious” discrimination [the same is true about the Log Cabin Republicans who posted the statement]. There is disagreement on what discrimination is invidious. He believes this negotiation will, instead of resolving the issue, create lasting social change for the better based on agreement in the middle.

    Hatch put in the Q? Why is that? Never mind, Trump did, too–I thought Trump had left it at the T during the Republican convention and that adding on the Q was Hatch’s decision. Well, as usual with the Trump presidency, it’s a long-time conservative who ends up doing the hard work of putting the policy into an enduring practice.

    But what does Q mean coming from Hatch? What invidious discrimination does he think is out there–because whatever it is wasn’t his idea, either.

    “This won’t end well for progressive LGBT activists”

    Bill O’Reilly said something similar this weekend about “bad news for liberals” with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the hospital. I have every confidence that at 85 and still doing push ups, Justice Ginsburg will be ready to hear this case and force the swing vote on Roberts long before and long after it reaches the high court. I’ll start worrying at either 90 or if she gets two more hospitalizations next year.

    And anyway, if conservatives don’t like it they can always take a few pages from liberals and start hanging out for dinner with the Colorado commissioners. Maybe even form a Billionaire’s SuperPAC to vote them out of office.

    Reply
  3. posted by Kosh III on

    ” motivated by a combination of religious animus and the belief that everyone must be forced to echo their beliefs and do their bidding.”
    An excellent summary of how the theocrats and religious conservatives have behaved for centuries, especially towards gay people.
    No one has been burned at the stake for not accepting equality for all, many have died for refusing to conform to someone else’s religious OPINION.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      That was before homosexuality was even known to exist. The only person left to blame is God.

      That’s because a certain measure of accountability led to reform and changes in Christianity. Thus it is reasonable to welcome it here.

      It was thanks to the nationalism practiced by the Cardinal Richelieu that such religious purges ceased being about doctrine (or at least church power) and more about territorialism. The Cardinal unified France under one religion, however in order to advance the interests of the French crown he at times sided with Germanic Protestants to the detriment of the Spanish royal family.

      Since then I would have a difficult time imagining a religious war that was not really about ethnicity or territory in disguise.

      (Of course, I have a hard time imagining any such conflict before then, too.)

      Reply
      • posted by Kosh III on

        “That was before homosexuality was even known to exist.”
        Huh????
        True, the word is only been around a few decades, it first appears in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1928 editioni. But to say it didn’t exist would seem to show an appalling lack of knowledge. Read Boswell.
        Curio the Younger tried to get the Senate to rebuke C Julius Caesar. He said Julius was “every man’s wife and every woman’s husband.
        The tomb of Hercules was a popular destination for “gay” men in classical times because of Hercules’ long time affair with Iolus.

        Reply
  4. posted by Kosh III on

    PS Merry Christmas y’all!

    Reply
  5. posted by JohnInCA on

    I’ve been hearing this “invidious discrimination” talking point a lot lately.

    It’s interesting, because it’s not actually in any non-discrimination law anywhere. I mean, if they want non-discrimination laws to just be about “invidious discrimination”, then folks are, of course, free to pursue that goal. But it’s not reasonable to expect gay folk to only seek enforcement of non-discrimination law in cases of “invidious discrimination” while other protected classes are free to seek enforcement of non-discrimination law in all cases.

    Or to put it more simply… we all should play by the same rules.

    Reply

Leave a Comment