This was a great piece. Thank you for sharing it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
An absurd analysis. Liberal justices are not 'trapped' by their votes this week. This decision was not required if the conservatives on the court wanted to go that way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Doesn’t it also follow from the logic of Bostock that abortion is unconstitutional due to the protections of all human persons under the 14th Amendment?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One can only hope
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems as if you can also extend the logic to discriminate by forbidding things that one gender tends to do a lot more than others. For example, if a company banned makeup worn by men or women, it wouldn't be sex-based discrimination.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Absolutely logical. Whether one thinks this good/bad, I think Gorsuch wasn’t very persuasive that the law’s use of “individual” was so significant nor that if Congress had just worded it a bit differently we still wouldn’t be focused on discrimination against an individual.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, well, the four liberals don’t care about textualism, and at least one conservative (likely Roberts, maybe Gorsuch or Kavanaugh) will rely on stare decisis to join them. The ratchet only goes one way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.