https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender.html
On October 8th the supreme court began their arguments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act to decide whether or not the law provides protection for members of the LGBTQ community from job descrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment descrimination on the basis or race, religion, sex and national origin as well as prohibiting descrimnation in the process of voter registration, racial segregation in schools and employment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the court’s four major gay rights cases, and joned the 5-4 ruling in the case of same sex marriage retired just last year. As the hearings begin to catch momentum it is evident that justices are divided amongst their presumed ideological standings, however Justice Gorsuch appears to be an exception. As a believer in textualism it appears that Justice Gorusuch may vote for the law to protect members of the LGBTQ and transgneder community alike, however Gorsuch does have a few reservations. Gorsuch believes that if the court were to come to the conclusion that the law provides protection for previously unprotected individuals, such a verdict seems more likely to come from congress and not the supreme court. Gorusuch also fears the massive public uproar the court's decision poses, however if the court decides that the civil rights act protects the individuals in question an entire community will finally be protected in the same way most citizens have been for the past 55 years.
What are some other popular ideologies seen in the supreme court?
Why does Gorsuch believe a verdict favoring the protection of members of the LGBTQ and transgender community is more pausable coming from congress?
What is your opinion on textualism, does it restrict members of the court from siding with their party?
Textualism is a legal philosophy that documents should be interpreted only by the word written in the law. It doesn't take into account the intention of the law, the problem it's supposed to address, or significant questions. I think textualism does not restrict members of the court from siding with their party. Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to be unbiased but that is definitely not the case. No matter what, they will vote according to party lines, not textualism which is why I think even though it would be helpful, it is not practiced as well as it should be.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution was written as a 'living document' this means that throughout time, as things change, the government can make amendments to the Constitution. As they should. I think that it is hard enough as it is to make changes and pass laws. So if a change needs to be made to the Constitution, it should be made. The world has changed so much in so many unpredictable ways that it is impossible to account for. For that reason, ithink that the Constitution should be flexible.Plus, if we were to interpret the Constitution the way the Founders intended, it would include the ability to make amendments.
ReplyDeleteSophie Aziza
3. Gorsich believes that protection of LGBTQ individuals coming from Congress will be more affective because it will be a Democratic controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate that will decide together that protection is needed. However, some anti-LGBTQ group will probably end up bringing the law in front of the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court is bound to answer whether they are protected by Civil Rights Act. Gorsich also worries about the reaction of the public, especially since he is seen as a conservative judge.
ReplyDelete3. Textualism is defined as a belief that's based on an interpretation of the text. Moreso,the method looks into the original meaning and purpose of the text within historical context and not what it could mean or bring into today's world. Because of this, textualism doesn't have an effect on members of the court's party choosing. No matter what the issue it's more likely for the justices to vote based on their political party stance and less about what the actual text says. Though, I think justices should vote based on what the text says and whether they agree or disagree with it because voting based on political parties is both bias and not always accurate as to what they might truly believe to be right.
ReplyDelete3. I think that textualism is a double-edged sword that requires congressmen to make difficult decisions. Parts of the Constitution have stood the test of time, and have not needed much reform. That being said, is it impossible to consider what our society has evolved into today to bare any resemblance to what the founder's society looked like when they wrote the constitution. Because of this, issues that were never originally thought possible have come up, and ideologies and social perspectives have changed greatly the past 250 years. Overall I would say it does not affect members decision making because the policies they are likely to support already reflect the idea of textualism versus activism.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that textualism is the correct judicial philosophy supreme court justices, or all judges for that matter, should interpret the law and the constitution. It is not the courts law to change the constitution or to see it as meaning something else from when that law or part of the constitution was written. It is congress' job, the legislative branch, to change the constitution or change laws when they feel it has become out of date. The role of the court should be simply to interpret as it was meant at the time of writing. In response to the second part, textualism does not restrict justices from making the right decisions, it allows them to make the correct decisions within the context of the power the court should have. In addition, not member of the court should openly or actively have any affiliation with a certain party as this detracts from the impartiality and ability to make effective decisions on the basis of what the constitution or laws says.
ReplyDeleteOther members of the Supreme Court have different opinions on the issue. Sotomayor addresses both sides of the issue, those who are being discriminated against, and those who may feel uncomfortable. She believes that there are definitely two valid arguments, but that the necessary thing to do is to fix the problem and find a solution. She believes that it is unfair to fire merely based on their sexual orientation, along with many other more liberal justices. Justice Breyer even went as far as to say that firing a man for being attracted to another man is the same as a catholic being attracted to a jew. On the other hand, Alito feels that accepting that this is what Title XXI was saying would be very controversial decision, and Justice Roberts claims that it would go against employers with religious obligations. The Supreme Court Justices are very split on the issue and it will be interesting to see what their decision will be.
ReplyDelete3. i think the idea of textualism makes interpretation have less to do with the party and more about making a just decision. Because there is an increase in party bias when making decisions in politics,it is a positive thing that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to focus on evidence in a written document rather than their own personal opinion. This makes decisions more lawful and reasonable.
ReplyDelete3. Textualism is a strict or rigid adherence to a text. With regards to the Supreme Court, this means that Justices who subscribe to textualism interpret the Constitution based on the text rather than personal opinion (which judicial activists do). As a result, this belief can restrict members of the Supreme Court from siding with their party, as they interpret laws based on the meaning of the text rather than party lines. However, typically conservatives subscribe to textualism and thus agree with what is typically a conservative text (as the Constitution and many laws were written a long time ago, when people had more conservative beliefs). I believe in judicial activism rather than textualism, because I believe that the meaning of various laws and parts of the Constitution should evolve along with society's views.
ReplyDelete2. Gorsuch believes that a verdict that favors the LGBTQ community would be more effective coming from Congress because the two houses are run by different political parties. If a law is passed that protects LGBTQ rights, then it will be more effective and supported since people from both parties will agree with it and then LGBTQ rights will be protected.
ReplyDelete