Dead on. That's why I said wrong in many cases. As it respects the Supreme Court, Liberals have traditionally found thing in the Constitution that are outside a plain reading of the text. Roe v Wade is the most easily noted example. The destruction of the 10th Amendment under FDR is the other game changing set of rulings.

From what I've read most non partisan folks say this guy is the best possible nominee one could have reasonably hoped for from Trump.

He seems halfway decent for a guy who isn't really interested in social progression. I'm not saying that in a negative way but it's just the reality of how he is.

Democrats can’t allow Trump to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during the last year of his presidency.

I smell a bit....

But this might BE the last year of the Trumo presidency!

Yes it is.

When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5–4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014–15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power — the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year‐​long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.

Even in 2013–14, when liberals and conservatives voted with their respective coalitions equally (54 times in 67 cases), 42 of those decisions were unanimous and there were only ten 5–4 rulings. In other words, when conservative justices vote together at the same rate as their liberal counterparts, it’s because the entire court is united.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-lgbtq-rights/index.html

A Trump appointed judge writing the majority opinion on a major win for Liberals.

Good to see his good choice do well.

Terrible decision, to be honest.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Why?

I dont want to be forced to put that trust into somebody who has cut off their own genitals.

Why?

Because they made up a law. Why is it that we can't do anything the right way? It just gets declared.

No love for John Roberts in all of this?

Sure Gorsuch wrote the opinion, but it was joined by all of the more liberal justices on the court, Roberts assigned the opinion to Gorsuch.

So not only did Roberts vote in a way to provide much needed legal protections to American citizens, but he was savvy enough to foresee that Gorsuch held a position that would likely lead to an opinion that could be supported by all of the more liberal justices.

I truly hope that Roberts has a long tenure as Chief Justice. He's the type of guy you want with with his hand on the tiller during a period when the other two branches of government seem to be self destructing in real time.

I work in a relatively dangerous (statistically) field that requires some amount of trust in the guy next to you. I dont want to be forced to put that trust into somebody who has cut off their own genitals. Such an act is cause for termination or to not hire someone in the first place, it is not merely a "personal choice" but an alarming window into one's character and mental well being.

In practice I know its very unlikely they'll be hired into my field and I'll be forced to work with them, but I still dont like there being a legal precedent that protects them should it happen.

Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?

Was that your reaction when they changed the voting rights act?

Shouldn't these things be unknown anyway? An employer is better off claiming they had no idea of someone's sexual orientation. Are gays/lesbians going to insist on being officially listed as such so they can make a claim if they are let go?

I work in a relatively dangerous (statistically) field that requires some amount of trust in the guy next to you. I dont want to be forced to put that trust into somebody who has cut off their own genitals. Such an act is cause for termination or to not hire someone in the first place, it is not merely a "personal choice" but an alarming window into one's character and mental well being.

In practice I know its very unlikely they'll be hired into my field and I'll be forced to work with them, but I still dont like there being a legal precedent that protects them should it happen.

There was no changing. There was throwing away aspects of a pre existing law that were unconstitutional.

And that's the last I'll say of this. I'm not going to get into an argument over a liberal's crazy made up logistics. "Abortion is a right to privacy" garbage.

This doesn’t really do much. Okay so you can’t fire or refuse to hire someone in the alphabet community. If you fire someone you should have cause anyway. It’s really probably minute the cases this affects.

What it does do and solidify is something I warned against some years ago. They raised these different preferences to a protected class. The same as those most believe are conferred at birth or by religion. You can’t slip in and out of being white or black or gay or straight etc. You can play the system and scream I’m a drag queen when they come to your cubicle with a guard and a box.