Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

The hits keep coming today.   Trump is doing his best to destroy Congressional oversight.   Question for lawyers here, could Schiff go to the Supreme Court and argue this himself?  

 

 Supreme Court grants Trump request to temporarily shield Mueller grand jury materials

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/496798-supreme-court-grants-trump-administration-request-to-temporarily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i predict he will not be compelled to release his tax returns especially any tax return that occurred before he was a public servant. There is something inherent in the privacy of tax returns and if he can be compelled to release them as public information what is to stop the press from compelling the release of tax records to any citizen or for public officials or interest groups targeting private individuals by compelling the release of tax returns? I do believe it sets a dangerous precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

i predict he will not be compelled to release his tax returns especially any tax return that occurred before he was a public servant. There is something inherent in the privacy of tax returns and if he can be compelled to release them as public information what is to stop the press from compelling the release of tax records to any citizen or for public officials or interest groups targeting private individuals by compelling the release of tax returns? I do believe it sets a dangerous precedent. 

No one is trying to release the tax returns as “public information.” One is for a criminal investigation and the other is for a congressional investigation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

i predict he will not be compelled to release his tax returns especially any tax return that occurred before he was a public servant. There is something inherent in the privacy of tax returns and if he can be compelled to release them as public information what is to stop the press from compelling the release of tax records to any citizen or for public officials or interest groups targeting private individuals by compelling the release of tax returns? I do believe it sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

Precedent has been set by prior Presidents releasing their tax returns, which did nothing to limit their duties to the Constitution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

 

Precedent has been set by prior Presidents releasing their tax returns, which did nothing to limit their duties to the Constitution.  

Precedent for political purposes is not legal precedent. Presidents have provided them in the past for a number of reasons, from their patriotic duty to being transparent with the voters. They did this not because they had to but chose too. There is a big difference there. They made the political calculation that providing their tax returns would make their chances of winning better. Trump chose a different path and won. If he does not want to disclose and people want to vote for him, that is their choice. However, this should not be public info. It should be like health records.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

i predict he will not be compelled to release his tax returns especially any tax return that occurred before he was a public servant. There is something inherent in the privacy of tax returns and if he can be compelled to release them as public information what is to stop the press from compelling the release of tax records to any citizen or for public officials or interest groups targeting private individuals by compelling the release of tax returns? I do believe it sets a dangerous precedent. 

 

He's lost at every stage of the litigation until now, but of course when the Supreme Court takes something like that, reversal is historically likely because the justices could simply have left it alone if they wanted the lower court ruling to stick.  That said, they may have taken it simply because of its public importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 3:57 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Precedent for political purposes is not legal precedent. Presidents have provided them in the past for a number of reasons, from their patriotic duty to being transparent with the voters. They did this not because they had to but chose too. There is a big difference there. They made the political calculation that providing their tax returns would make their chances of winning better. Trump chose a different path and won. If he does not want to disclose and people want to vote for him, that is their choice. However, this should not be public info. It should be like health records.

 

 

Are you really arguing that privacy concerns trump concerns over foreign influence?  One is pretty explicit in the Constitution and one isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

Are you really arguing that privacy concerns trump concerns over foreign influence?  One is pretty explicit in the Constitution and one isn't. 

I am arguing that the ends do not justify the means. I am arguing that if the info cannot be accessed according to traditional rules of fairness, then yes.

It is like attorney client privilege or confessing to your priest, even if it is in there, it is private information and not intended for the public to see or view.

 

Do any means necessary trump the ability for fairness in a trial and investigation? To what end does the public right to know about the affairs of a private individual stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I am arguing that the ends do not justify the means. I am arguing that if the info cannot be accessed according to traditional rules of fairness, then yes.

It is like attorney client privilege or confessing to your priest, even if it is in there, it is private information and not intended for the public to see or view.

 

Do any means necessary trump the ability for fairness in a trial and investigation? To what end does the public right to know about the affairs of a private individual stop?

 

How do we judge whether there are any foreign financial entanglements in a President or Presidential candidate if he can hide his finances?  That is the "ends" -- asking politely did not work, what would you suggest?

 

The Republicans seem to be saying, "we don't care what he does, as long as he's a Republican.  Why are you even investigating this?" And I have no doubt that even if it turns out that our President is millions of dollars in the red to the Reds, the Republican response will be --  "meh. Why are you attacking our President?!"

 

Rule of Law Party -- ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

How do we judge whether there are any foreign financial entanglements in a President or Presidential candidate if he can hide his finances?  That is the "ends" -- asking politely did not work, what would you suggest?

 

The Republicans seem to be saying, "we don't care what he does, as long as he's a Republican.  Why are you even investigating this?" And I have no doubt that even if it turns out that our President is millions of dollars in the red to the Reds, the Republican response will be --  "meh. Why are you attacking our President?!"

 

Rule of Law Party -- ha!

Hypothetical - Donald Trump tells his attorney he is a Russian spy. Adam Schiff has a strong suspicion that this conversation took place because he bugged the conversation. Donald Trump publicly denies the conversation and the only person who can corroborate it, outside the tapes is Trump's attorney. Unfortunately, you have Schiff breaking the law to obtain such information so you cant admit the tapes and the only legal way to get the information out is to compel the attorney to break the attorney client privilege.  Certainly, it is in the nation's public interest to have this information public, there is definitely a pressing interest to know this, however, by doing so, you have to violate a core principle of attorney client privilege and/or break the law through an unauthorized wire tap. While some may argue the end justifies the means, I argue that the core principles of fairness and justice override that argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Hypothetical - Donald Trump tells his attorney he is a Russian spy. Adam Schiff has a strong suspicion that this conversation took place because he bugged the conversation. Donald Trump publicly denies the conversation and the only person who can corroborate it, outside the tapes is Trump's attorney. Unfortunately, you have Schiff breaking the law to obtain such information so you cant admit the tapes and the only legal way to get the information out is to compel the attorney to break the attorney client privilege.  Certainly, it is in the nation's public interest to have this information public, there is definitely a pressing interest to know this, however, by doing so, you have to violate a core principle of attorney client privilege and/or break the law through an unauthorized wire tap. While some may argue the end justifies the means, I argue that the core principles of fairness and justice override that argument. 

 

Sure, in that hypothetical, I generally agree -- except that the attorney-client privilege doesn't exist for ongoing crimes, does it? 

 

And with Trump's finances, we're not talking about an attorney-client privilege,  we're talking about whether Trump's accountants/bank have to turn over financial records, and in another case whether the IRS has to turn over tax records. There's no question of "privilege" there, only the "right" of privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Sure, in that hypothetical, I generally agree -- except that the attorney-client privilege doesn't exist for ongoing crimes, does it? 

 

And with Trump's finances, we're not talking about an attorney-client privilege,  we're talking about whether Trump's accountants/bank have to turn over financial records, and in another case whether the IRS has to turn over tax records. There's no question of "privilege" there, only the "right" of privacy.

My position on the tax records, and whether they are Trump's or if they were Obama's, my point is that there is a semblance of privacy about a person's tax records, like voting, that the general public does not have a right to know. The IRS is powerful enough but I don't think Congress should also be able to essentially weaponize a person's tax returns for political purposes no matter what side of the aisle they are on or more importantly what business they are in or how well connected they may be. 

I could possibly see disclosing them in a confidential manner to a select group of Congressmen who agree to keep the details confidential and not disclose to the public, but I dont think that would be reasonable in today's charged political environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch may be in play on the Trump tax issue.  Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas signaling they will side with Trump because "Congress has no power to regulate the President," which isn't what the case is about but...you know...gotta protect the Republican POTUS.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts suggested that Dems slow rolling Trump's nominees is somehow how Congress should / is allowed to respond to Trump's *refusal to answer a lawful subpoena.*

 

"Balls and strikes" my a**.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

My position on the tax records, and whether they are Trump's or if they were Obama's, my point is that there is a semblance of privacy about a person's tax records, like voting, that the general public does not have a right to know. The IRS is powerful enough but I don't think Congress should also be able to essentially weaponize a person's tax returns for political purposes no matter what side of the aisle they are on or more importantly what business they are in or how well connected they may be. 

I could possibly see disclosing them in a confidential manner to a select group of Congressmen who agree to keep the details confidential and not disclose to the public, but I dont think that would be reasonable in today's charged political environment. 

 

I would agree that everyone has a right to keep their vote secret, and that for the average person tax returns are not public documents.  I also agree that it would be a shame if Congress could "weaponize" a person's tax returns for political purpose.  Although I think that we have already seen some criticism following political candidates voluntarily releasing their financial information, so I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

 

I think that your tax returns (and all of your financial information) become of public interest when you're a government official, and particularly the President or any presidential candidate, thanks to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  Congress has an obligation to uphold the Constitution and all members of Congress take an oath to do so when taking office.  The Emoluments Clause says "no foreign gifts without Congressional approval."  Therefore, it seems very clear that Congress has an obligation to investigate whether a President has received any financial gifts or owes any financial obligations to a foreign power. 

 

Past presidents, including Bush and Obama, released their tax returns for that purpose.  Trump said that he would while campaigning, but that has turned out to be a lie, as he has been fighting doing so in court.  There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the power to investigate pursuant to a Constitutional mandate is limited, that only a select group of Congressmen have that obligation to investigate, or that the results must be kept confidential. 

 

Let's suppose that President Obama was unable to get a loan to support his business and got a huge loan from China, so big that there is no way even Warren Buffet could pay it off in a lifetime.  If that was revealed in his tax returns, and discovered only by a select group of Congressmen who agree to keep the details confidential, would they then be barred from taking any action?  Including disclosure to the rest of Congress?  Including an inability to impeach (and investigate further)?  That seems absurd.  And remember Whitewater -- this is not some new play by Congress.  We've been down this road before and the Courts sided with Congress, not the Executive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alito: "I don't know how good this court is at predicting the impact of our decisions."

 

Also Alito: Mouthed "NOT TRUE" at President Obama when he explained the impact of Citizens United.

 

So bad.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that Sekulow is arguing that they are only arguing for temporary presidential immunity. Pretty much saying they only want the rules to apply to Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorsuch and Roberts join the liberal wing of SCOTUS and agree in 6-3 decision that Title VII covers sexual orientation and transgender people. Gorsuch wrote the opinion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas manage to find themselves on the wrong side of history, again.  What a surprise.

 

Alito's dissent alone is over 100 pages lmao

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas manage to find themselves on the wrong side of history, again.  What a surprise.

 

Alito's dissent alone is over 100 pages lmao

 

What could possibly take 100 pages to dissent?   Would love to hear from a UO forum lawyer about this 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

What could possibly take 100 pages to dissent?   Would love to hear from a UO forum lawyer about this 🙂

 

You kidding?  The majority opinion is 33 pages, and even that is more than I'm likely to be able to slog through anytime soon.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf

 

The 100+ page dissent calls to mind Churchill's famous quip about a report from some bureaucracy or other: "This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's really key about this decision is that Gorsuch stops short of declaring LGBT a protected class. 

 

Rather, his decision hinges on the fact that firing and LGBT employee for his/her relationships turns solely on the fact that the decision would not have been made but for the gender of the affected individual. I loveeeeee that rationale as any textualist cannot assail him for it. He has a brilliance in his writing that predicts and fends off attacks. 

 

Moreover, as some of you know, I followed Kavanaugh's career as a jurist. I loved him as a circuit court judge. The jurisprudence Kavanaugh used to apply on circuit would've landed him in the majority here. He's hardened since his confirmation hearings, and it's led to him being inconsistent with prior jurisprudence - which is a damn shame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Moreover, as some of you know, I followed Kavanaugh's career as a jurist. I loved him as a circuit court judge. The jurisprudence Kavanaugh used to apply on circuit would've landed him in the majority here. He's hardened since his confirmation hearings, and it's led to him being inconsistent with prior jurisprudence - which is a damn shame. 

 

I'm not sure about that; I've only read the first couple of paragraphs of Kavanaugh's decision here but it seems pretty standard: Title VII does not contain separate protected categories of "sex" and 'sexual orientation;" those are not the same thing; therefore, the responsibility to clarify whether that should be added rests with Congress.  And while you suggest that Gorsuch's reading has textualist armor, it goes too far to say that the textualists "cannot assail him for it," since both dissents do exactly that.  You say that Gorsuch didn't define sexual orientation as a new protected class, but he did, he defined it as inherently part of the existing protected class of "sex," at least as far as Title VII is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I'm not sure about that; I've only read the first couple of paragraphs of Kavanaugh's decision here but it seems pretty standard: Title VII does not contain separate protected categories of "sex" and 'sexual orientation;" those are not the same thing; therefore, the responsibility to clarify whether that should be added rests with Congress.  And while you suggest that Gorsuch's reading has textualist armor, it goes too far to say that the textualists "cannot assail him for it," since both dissents do exactly that.  You say that Gorsuch didn't define sexual orientation as a new protected class, but he did, he defined it as inherently part of the existing protected class of "sex," at least as far as Title VII is concerned.

 

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120120821 Macy v DOJ ATF.txt

 

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120133080.pdf


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I'm not sure about that; I've only read the first couple of paragraphs of Kavanaugh's decision here but it seems pretty standard: Title VII does not contain separate protected categories of "sex" and 'sexual orientation;" those are not the same thing; therefore, the responsibility to clarify whether that should be added rests with Congress.  And while you suggest that Gorsuch's reading has textualist armor, it goes too far to say that the textualists "cannot assail him for it," since both dissents do exactly that.  You say that Gorsuch didn't define sexual orientation as a new protected class, but he did, he defined it as inherently part of the existing protected class of "sex," at least as far as Title VII is concerned.

 

Orientation, yes.  But it seems to me Congress, or states, could exclude "transgender" by defining one's gender as the one they possessed at birth.   Perhaps creating some exceptions, perhaps not.

Whether or not the legislatures would do this is another matter.   The womens' sports issue alone could cause it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I'm not sure about that; I've only read the first couple of paragraphs of Kavanaugh's decision here but it seems pretty standard: Title VII does not contain separate protected categories of "sex" and 'sexual orientation;" those are not the same thing; therefore, the responsibility to clarify whether that should be added rests with Congress.  And while you suggest that Gorsuch's reading has textualist armor, it goes too far to say that the textualists "cannot assail him for it," since both dissents do exactly that.  You say that Gorsuch didn't define sexual orientation as a new protected class, but he did, he defined it as inherently part of the existing protected class of "sex," at least as far as Title VII is concerned.

 

He didn't, though. Per black letter law, protected classes haven't changed. There is a transitive property element to this - I agree with you there, but his decision is almost irrelevant to LGBT in terms of classification 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kavanaugh took a slightly different approach in his dissent. He accused the majority of taking a “literalist,” not a “textualist” approach to the language in Title VII. The primary wrong, he said, was taking the words individually instead of analyzing the entire phrase.

 

LMAO

 

Alito, uh, seems to misunderstand the majority opinion.

 

Here are a bunch of pieces from National Review, a publication I'm told is "serious" and "well-meaning," except they're mostly just complaining about the decision lol.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-redefines-sex-bostock-v-clayton-county-case/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/trolling-is-a-terrible-way-to-write-laws/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=third

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-supreme-court-decides-who-is-a-woman/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=fourth

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the SCOTUS decison regarding employment discrimination is one thing...are there pending cases regarding discrimination in housing, public accommodations, etc. as this does not seem to apply to anything other than employment ?  It seems that the same argument made for employment discrimination being unconstitutional on the basis of sex discrimination could be applied as sex discrimination when applied to more than just employment?

 

So if someone wants to evict someone or deny someone a public service based on sexual orientation is that also sex based discrimination given this ruli

 

The hiring and firing argument part seems like it would be completely analogous to evicting, denying service, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to reason to believe that the Court would come out any differently in defining "sex" as used in the Fair Housing Act (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, hardly likely to be interpreted differently than the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

 

That said, this is definitely not my area of the law.  I know that there are at least some single-sex housing facilities out there in the world.  So the sweeping prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex must have some give in it somewhere, somehow.  That said, a landlord would almost certainly be unable to argue that discrimination against homosexuals specifically was a permissible form of sex discrimination in housing.  I could see this be a problem for a transgender person seeking access to a single-sex facility that matches their biological sex but not self-identified gender if the single-sex facility was otherwise permissible under whatever the applicable standard is (which I do not know).  That will be a tiny part of the total housing stock of the U.S., though.  The general rule is almost certainly to be the same in the Fair Housing Act as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

I'd make the same predictions with respect to education.  There are single-sex educational facilities at both the K-12 and secondary level, though of course some of those have been contested in litigation successfully (I remember the Citadel case way back when).  Again, not my area of law.  But my guess is that whatever the standard is for allowing or forbidding single-sex education will be applied to homosexual and transgender individuals now as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I have to reason to believe that the Court would come out any differently in defining "sex" as used in the Fair Housing Act (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, hardly likely to be interpreted differently than the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

 

That said, this is definitely not my area of the law.  I know that there are at least some single-sex housing facilities out there in the world.  So the sweeping prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex must have some give in it somewhere, somehow.  That said, a landlord would almost certainly be unable to argue that discrimination against homosexuals specifically was a permissible form of sex discrimination in housing.  I could see this be a problem for a transgender person seeking access to a single-sex facility that matches their biological sex but not self-identified gender if the single-sex facility was otherwise permissible under whatever the applicable standard is (which I do not know).  That will be a tiny part of the total housing stock of the U.S., though.  The general rule is almost certainly to be the same in the Fair Housing Act as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

I'd make the same predictions with respect to education.  There are single-sex educational facilities at both the K-12 and secondary level, though of course some of those have been contested in litigation successfully (I remember the Citadel case way back when).  Again, not my area of law.  But my guess is that whatever the standard is for allowing or forbidding single-sex education will be applied to homosexual and transgender individuals now as well.

Thanks. What do you think about public accommodations?(i.e. the gay wedding cake stuff?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

So the SCOTUS decison regarding employment discrimination is one thing...are there pending cases regarding discrimination in housing, public accommodations, etc. as this does not seem to apply to anything other than employment ?  It seems that the same argument made for employment discrimination being unconstitutional on the basis of sex discrimination could be applied as sex discrimination when applied to more than just employment?

 

So if someone wants to evict someone or deny someone a public service based on sexual orientation is that also sex based discrimination given this ruli

 

The hiring and firing argument part seems like it would be completely analogous to evicting, denying service, etc.

Housing is going to be much more nuanced. For example, if you are a renter in a "roomshare" where the owner is renting out rooms in their personal residence, they have the ability to discriminate however they want, and this case does not change that. If, the owner says I will only rent to men, and someone moves in and then undergoes a sex change, they can be terminated from the lease.

 

I imagine it will be the same with single sex housing at certain private organizations. I do not foresee the end to single sex organizations based on this, especially since almost all single sex organizations tend to be private groups and associations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Thanks. What do you think about public accommodations?(i.e. the gay wedding cake stuff?)

 

That will remain a live issue and I actually don't think this changes that fight as much as some religious conservatives think.  This was not a constitutional decision, it was a statutory interpretation decision.  Congress could even repeal Title VII entirely if they wanted to.  After all, there has not been a single turnover on the Court since Masterpiece Cakeshop.  The same court that just issued 6-3 in Bostock went 7-2 the other direction in Masterpiece Cakeshop (2 of those were on more forgiving procedural grounds that might not be replicated, but that would still have left a 5-4 decision in the baker's favor even if the commission had not been so openly, viscerally hostile to the baker's religious beliefs).

 

Remember that even in Masterpiece, the baker was still willing to sell "regular" baked goods to the gay couple on the same terms as he sold to anyone else who walked in off the street; his red line was doing a custom wedding cake for a gay marriage.

 

To make an apples-to-apples comparison in the housing context--keeping it on the nature of the product or service requested and not directly about the identity of the persons making the request--you'd have to seriously answer the question of what is a "gay" apartment instead of a "straight" apartment.  Good luck.  

 

ETA: More seriously and charitably to possibly opposing views, there could potentially be room to make an argument in favor of an intentionally orthodox religious community but still outside of the formal organized religion's institutional structure.  However, basically no one tries that, even very insular orthodox religions like orthodox Jews.  Maybe it was already tried long ago and shot down.  Maybe it is just too logistically complicated to even be worth making the attempt regardless of if it's legal.  Either way, it would be a minuscule portion of the housing stock of even a small community, let alone a metro area of any size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am less concerned about the nuances and more concerned about the very basic stuff like "I don't want gays in this apartment complex" or "I don't want to serve gays in this restaurant" stuff. I am looking at the general and less the specific. Right now, someone can say "we don't want to serve gays, we don't want to rent an apartment to gays" and it is perfectly legal in many locations(although they can likely expect a severe backlash as in boycotts, etc in many areas.) Will there need to be extra legislation needed or given this ruling, is this general stuff likely covered under any existing Federal laws?

 

Where I live there is no local protection whatsoever from this type of discrimination. Does this ruling change that at all or signal a change in this area?-this is what I am asking, not the minutiae of special circumstances that have been noted.

 

*Also on the "gay vs straight" apartment thing...if someone is denying renting because someone is a man who has sex with a man(gay), then with this ruling applied wouldn't they also then need to deny renting to women who have sex with a man because otherwise it is discrimination based on sex, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other SCOTUS news, of remarkably contemporary relevance even though this conference would have been on the calendar for a long time (it almost always takes over a year for a case to reach the Supreme Court), the Court denied cert in a case that would have involved a reexamination of the doctrine of qualified immunity for police officers.

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/876853817/supreme-court-will-not-re-examine-doctrine-that-shields-police-in-misconduct-sui

 

One justice issued a dissent from the denial of cert: Clarence Thomas.

 

As the article notes, there have been two outspoken critics of qualified immunity for police officers on the Supreme Court in recent years, and it's curious that almost the only thing they have in common on the Court is that they're the Court's two ethnic minorities: Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I really am less concerned about the nuances and more concerned about the very basic stuff like "I don't want gays in this apartment complex" or "I don't want to serve gays in this restaurant" stuff. I am looking at the general and less the specific.

 

As a general matter and in the first instance, I think the much more straightforward reading of Bostock is that it would apply to housing discrimination as well, since both the Fair Housing Act and Title VII contain express prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of "sex."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

As a general matter and in the first instance, I think the much more straightforward reading of Bostock is that it would apply to housing discrimination as well, since both the Fair Housing Act and Title VII contain express prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of "sex."

Thanks for your input! The two main things I have been concerned with are employment and housing. These are paramount IMO-income and shelter. Healthcare is right up there as well.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I really am less concerned about the nuances and more concerned about the very basic stuff like "I don't want gays in this apartment complex" or "I don't want to serve gays in this restaurant" stuff. I am looking at the general and less the specific. Right now, someone can say "we don't want to serve gays, we don't want to rent an apartment to gays" and it is perfectly legal in many locations(although they can likely expect a severe backlash as in boycotts, etc in many areas.) Will there need to be extra legislation needed or given this ruling, is this general stuff likely covered under any existing Federal laws?

 

Where I live there is no local protection whatsoever from this type of discrimination. Does this ruling change that at all or signal a change in this area?-this is what I am asking, not the minutiae of special circumstances that have been noted.

 

*Also on the "gay vs straight" apartment thing...if someone is denying renting because someone is a man who has sex with a man(gay), then with this ruling applied wouldn't they also then need to deny renting to women who have sex with a man because otherwise it is discrimination based on sex, right?

For the housing questions, HUD should have guidelines that much of this should fall under. I am not 100% on some of the specific questions about renting to gay individuals specifically, however, I would argue that they would fall under some of the same discrimination rules that apply to discrimination against family size and ethnicity. 

That being said, the type of housing matters. For example if the housing is owner occupied, the owner can discriminate however he wants in choosing someone to rent an empty room in his house. I believe this extends to Quads if the owner lives in one unit. So in those cases, it would be perfectly legal to state no gay, or must be Christian, etc. because the owner would be welcoming you into his shared living space. If the owner does not live there the calculus is changed and you cannot discriminate. 

For the vast majority of rental property which is non-owner occupied, there will likely be the protections under the HUD guidelines for LGBT couples, even if they do not specifically state that, most courts and the Civil Rights Commission will typically try and take a broad view of things from what i have seen in these areas. 

 

Are there specific complaints you have seen in Cleveland on the housing front?

 

;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

For the housing questions, HUD should have guidelines that much of this should fall under. I am not 100% on some of the specific questions about renting to gay individuals specifically, however, I would argue that they would fall under some of the same discrimination rules that apply to discrimination against family size and ethnicity. 

 

 

I think this goes beyond "guidelines;" those could be changed by a future administration without Congress, for example.  The Fair Housing Act is a statute, and it specifically states that "sex" is one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/daca-immigration-supreme-court/index.html

 

They get to the right decision, but the reasoning is...uh...wild.  Basically, it boils down to Trump may have said he wanted to do this for discriminatory reasons but plaintiffs can't say the cabinet officials were listening to Trump when they did the thing Trump told them to do.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...