Trump - Supreme Court Watch

[jdshock]

I have a friend who put her kids through Georgetown. Her kids went to HS at Second Baptist HS here in Houston. Just because someone went to Georgetown (and especially for post-graduate work) doesn't automatically mean they're Catholic. People go to Georgetown for a lot of reasons, primarily among them is that they want an education at a top-notch school and can afford it (IIRC it's at least 100K per year, I'm thinking close to a half-mil for a full four years).

I would also venture to guess if Gorsuch is from northern Indiana (like Fort Wayne, for instance), it might have been he went to Notre Dame because it is close. Note I haven't the foggiest clue where Gorsuch is from, just pointing out (since spending some time up in that neck of the woods) that there are a lot of locals in the area who go to ND. If they don't go to IU or IUPUI or IPFW, the only other choice up in northern Indiana is Purdue. Purdue is also relatively expensive, with out-of-state tuition running about 40K/yr.

Gorsuch went to Columbia, then Harvard, then Oxford. It turns out he is Episcopalian.

I stand by my statement that a person is more likely to be Catholic than not if they go to Notre Dame undergrad and Georgetown law. There are exceptions, but I believe it's greater than 50% who would be Catholic. I was only talking about Hardiman. He went to both schools.

[wu_shizzle]

Gorsuch went to Columbia, then Harvard, then Oxford. It turns out he is Episcopalian.

The Episcopal Church will ordain homosexuals.

Not that this will matter to the outrage industry about to unleash on the guy.

[WuDrWu]

Not exactly a big jump from Episcopalian to Catholicism. And vice versa.

@Kung Wu:, a counter to your theory, which I actually think is a good one.

2018 Senatorial Map is not pretty for the Dems.

I think there are 10 Dems in states where Trump won.

Only Heller in Nevada and Flake in Arizona look very vulnerable for the GOP.

Nelson (FL), Donnelly (IN), McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), Heitkamp (ND), Brown (OH), Casey (PA), Manchin (WV) and Baldwin (WI) could all face tough challenges.

Even tougher ones if they block a squeaky clean SCOTUS nominee. Could they turn 7? It would be close.

[jdshock]

The Episcopal Church will ordain homosexuals.

Not that this will matter to the outrage industry about to unleash on the guy.

Trump isn't particularly anti-LGBT rights, which is interesting because he's surrounded himself with a lot of folks very opposed to the movement. If I remember right, Gorsuch decided the Hobby Lobby case at the lower level. I'm like 90% certain on that. So he's pretty into the idea of religious freedoms for corporations, which could come into play eventually in an LGBT Supreme Court case. There's a lot in his history to believe he's going to be a very conservative Justice. Maybe more so than Scalia. There's a lot for Democrats to oppose.

By the way, @Kung Wu: is halfway to having the most impressive prediction this site has seen since the Final Four with doc.

[WuDrWu]

Trump isn't particularly anti-LGBT rights, which is interesting because he's surrounded himself with a lot of folks very opposed to the movement.

I'm sorry, I just have to take issue with the way you and other liberals frame this. If you want to say some people are against creating specific laws that apply only to specific groups of people, whether by choice or not, then we can have that discussion.

Framing it as "against" the rights of groups is patently false. We all have the same rights. You want to create special rights for only certain people.

HUGE difference.

Moving on.............

By the way, @Kung Wu: is halfway to having the most impressive prediction this site has seen since the Final Four with doc.

Oh please....it was a good theory but let's not get carried away. :bball_spin:

[wufan]

I'm sorry, I just have to take issue with the way you and other liberals frame this. If you want to say some people are against creating specific laws that apply only to specific groups of people, whether by choice or not, then we can have that discussion.

Framing it as "against" the rights of groups is patently false. We all have the same rights. You want to create special rights for only certain people.

HUGE difference.

Have to agree with Doc on this one. I'm all for equality and inclusion so long as it isn't inequitable or exclusive.

[Kung Wu]

Not exactly a big jump from Episcopalian to Catholicism. And vice versa.

@Kung Wu:, a counter to your theory, which I actually think is a good one.

2018 Senatorial Map is not pretty for the Dems.

I think there are 10 Dems in states where Trump won.

Only Heller in Nevada and Flake in Arizona look very vulnerable for the GOP.

Nelson (FL), Donnelly (IN), McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), Heitkamp (ND), Brown (OH), Casey (PA), Manchin (WV) and Baldwin (WI) could all face tough challenges.

Even tougher ones if they block a squeaky clean SCOTUS nominee. Could they turn 7? It would be close.

Ewww, interesting.

[wu_shizzle]

NM

[ShockingButTrue]

When is this biddy's seat 'gonna be vacated? She's pickled from all of those highballs.

[jdshock]

I'm sorry, I just have to take issue with the way you and other liberals frame this. If you want to say some people are against creating specific laws that apply only to specific groups of people, whether by choice or not, then we can have that discussion.

Framing it as "against" the rights of groups is patently false. We all have the same rights. You want to create special rights for only certain people.

HUGE difference.

Moving on.............



Oh please....it was a good theory but let's not get carried away. :bball_spin:

I guess I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's accurate. When women sought the right to vote, it was in the name of women's rights. The constitutional amendment was passed with women in mind. The amendment protects all people, but men had no need to be protected at that point. The same would be true for just about any LGBT legislation. It would say "X can't be infringed because of sexual orientation."

But it's more than that. Many of these individuals were FOR passing additional laws to ensure these groups did not receive protection.

P.S. To be clear, I didn't say the prediction would surpass the Final Four one. Around here, I'd say most of us miss quite a bit more than we hit. It's a fairly low bar.

[wufan]

I guess I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's accurate. When women sought the right to vote, it was in the name of women's rights. The constitutional amendment was passed with women in mind. The amendment protects all people, but men had no need to be protected at that point. The same would be true for just about any LGBT legislation. It would say "X can't be infringed because of sexual orientation."

But it's more than that. Many of these individuals were FOR passing additional laws to ensure these groups did not receive protection.

P.S. To be clear, I didn't say the prediction would surpass the Final Four one. Around here, I'd say most of us miss quite a bit more than we hit. It's a fairly low bar.

What protection to LGBTs need that isn't already granted in the constitution or other legislation? Is it just marriage?

[John Higgins]

If you want to watch a liberal's head spin just ask a few questions:

Women's rights are her rights and men shouldn't have a say in it, right?

You do support transsexual rights and think anyone can identify with whatever gender they feel like?

So if a man can become a woman today or whenever he wants to, why doesn't he have a say in women's rights?

Is it because he doesn't have a vagina? If that's the case, then you really don't recognize transsexuals as a woman then,

I don't see how you can have it both ways

[jdshock]

What protection to LGBTs need that isn't already granted in the constitution or other legislation? Is it just marriage?

Just as an example, Title VII prevents sex discrimination in the (qualifying) workplace. It would be easy to pass legislation affording similar protections for sexual orientation. Housing is another area. There is federal legislation preventing discrimination in housing. It even covers familial status, but it doesn't currently provide protections for sexual orientation. Credit applications and jury selection, off the top of my head. I don't know.

There are a lot of federal laws that provide protections based on sex, race, etc. You might argue that sexual orientation is not an innate characteristic like sex or race, which is obviously one way to oppose new legislation. But it's unfair to act like "we all have the same rights." Most LGBT protection proposals are to add "sexual orientation" to already existing lists of classes which cannot be used for discrimination.

Personally, I don't understand why it isn't just "sex discrimination." If you wouldn't fire a woman for being interested in men, firing a man for being interested in men is pretty clearly sex discrimination, in my opinion.

[atlwsu]

If you want to watch a liberal's head spin just ask a few questions:

Women's rights are her rights and men shouldn't have a say in it, right?

You do support transsexual rights and think anyone can identify with whatever gender they feel like?

So if a man can become a woman today or whenever he wants to, why doesn't he have a say in women's rights?

Is it because he doesn't have a vagina? If that's the case, then you really don't recognize transsexuals as a woman then,

I don't see how you can have it both ways

Funny but non sequitur

[wufan]

Just as an example, Title VII prevents sex discrimination in the (qualifying) workplace. It would be easy to pass legislation affording similar protections for sexual orientation. Housing is another area. There is federal legislation preventing discrimination in housing. It even covers familial status, but it doesn't currently provide protections for sexual orientation. Credit applications and jury selection, off the top of my head. I don't know.

There are a lot of federal laws that provide protections based on sex, race, etc. You might argue that sexual orientation is not an innate characteristic like sex or race, which is obviously one way to oppose new legislation. But it's unfair to act like "we all have the same rights." Most LGBT protection proposals are to add "sexual orientation" to already existing lists of classes which cannot be used for discrimination.

Personally, I don't understand why it isn't just "sex discrimination." If you wouldn't fire a woman for being interested in men, firing a man for being interested in men is pretty clearly sex discrimination, in my opinion.

So I can fire one of my employees for being gay? I would have sworn that was illegal.