Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Serious question... Why not pursue federal legislation adding LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA? Why leave it to the states when state law is quite clearly superceded by Constitutional Rights and federal law?
Did you not know that there is action already to do just that?
Scalia and the supreme court disagrees with your second point. See Emp div v Smith among other cases.
I forgot you know more about constitutional law than the supreme court justices.
Did you not know that there is action already to do just that?
Yes. Several. It doesn't have enough support, and never has regardless of whether Dems or the GOP was in power.
Quote:
Scalia and the supreme court disagrees with your second point. See Emp div v Smith among other cases.
Exactly why more Constitutionalist Justices need to be appointed to SCOTUS. I and many others don't want our Constitutional Rights eroded any further than they already are.
There are already steps in the correct direction... DC lost DC v. Heller in a case of a local law v. a Constitutional Right. The Constitutional Right won.
Again, the issue is that LGBTs have no federal legislative protection. There have been several bills introduced in Congress to add LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA, but they've never succeeded regardless of whether Dems or the GOP was in power. Therefore, via the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the baker's First Amendment Rights prevail:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
I'll spit into the wind and beat my head against a brick wall once.
Try reading the transcript of the oral arguments. From Roberts and Alito to Ginsburg and Sotomayor, no discussion at all of your Supremacy Clause or Federal Civil Rights Act arguments. Nor did the lawyers for the baker or the U.S. DOJ offer your unique opinions. I'd settle for a prior court case, an article in Scotusblog or Findlaw, something, anything to give your take on this case any credibility. If you want to impeach the entire SC and replace them with judges who agree with you, we'll be courtless forever.
I'll spit into the wind and beat my head against a brick wall once.
Try reading the transcript of the oral arguments. From Roberts and Alito to Ginsburg and Sotomayor, no discussion at all of your Supremacy Clause or Federal Civil Rights Act arguments.
There doesn't need to be. It's not in dispute. It simply is. Right there in Article VI.
And I've already given an example: DC v. Heller. DC lost because its local gun regulation law violated Constitutional Rights. Supremacy Clause.
Are you saying SCOTUS Justices shouldn't uphold the Constitution? That's a violation of their Oath.
Then they've been violating their oaths for a LONG time. The Constitution meant for them to uphold the laws, not rewrite them with judicial fiat with is what Engle vs. Vitale, Roe vs. Wade, King vs. Burwell, and Obergefell vs. Hodges were.)
Serious question... Why not pursue federal legislation adding LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA? Why leave it to the states when state law is quite clearly superceded by Constitutional Rights and federal law?
Simple answer is that The congressional votes and/or President support have never been sufficient enough for that in recent years. The only plausible time where it could be done was during the first 2 years of Obama’sfirst term. But, they had their hands full with other more pressing issues back then. Gay advancements have mostly been made at the courts with only a few modern, progressive states who achieved advances through the legislatures. The best chance to achieve gay advancement was through Employment fairness. The ENDA (Employee Nondiscrimination Act) was introduced in many congresses and had a good chance when Dems controlled the Congress in 2006, but then Bush threatened to veto it. If the Congress/President cannot even have the political to agree that gays deserve fair employment practices, how successful do you think that they would be at adding sex orientation as a protected class to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act? Or are you suggesting that adding to the CRA could be achieved through the Courts?
Simple answer is that The congressional votes and/or President support have never been sufficient enough for that in recent years. The only plausible time where it could be done was during the first 2 years of Obama’sfirst term. But, they had their hands full with other more pressing issues back then.
Note to LGBT: Your rights aren't an important issue to Dems.
Quote:
Gay advancements have mostly been made at the courts with only a few modern, progressive states who achieved advances through the legislatures. The best chance to achieve gay advancement was through Employment fairness. The ENDA (Employee Nondiscrimination Act) was introduced in many congresses and had a good chance when Dems controlled the Congress in 2006, but then Bush threatened to veto it. If the Congress/President cannot even have the political to agree that gays deserve fair employment practices, how successful do you think that they would be at adding sex orientation as a protected class to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act? Or are you suggesting that adding to the CRA could be achieved through the Courts?
No, it would have to be federally legislated given the very exact wording of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI. I'm saying US Congress, both Dems and the GOP, has spoken: LGBT rights aren't an important issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
