Unfortunately it comes at the same time that the administration rolled back healthcare protections for transgender people. Must be terrifying for someone to make your basic humanity a political football. SCOTUS rulings are much more durable than executive actions though.
> Must be terrifying for someone to make your basic humanity a political football.
Thank you, you worded it really well. A lot of us are just trying to live a quiet life with dignity. I work for a large company that considers itself progressive in these matters. Everybody with access to my background (HR, upper management) is constantly letting me know that "they know" about my background, they win awards for how well they treat me, and feel-good stuff like "they're with me". It's hell.
Ah but did you know how brave you are for existing? Imagine... I couldn't exist like that... but you? So brave... your courage... to just stand there and exist. Wow. I'm so inspired. I tell my wine tasting friends how brave all my lgbt coworkers are and i honestly feel like an honorary lgbt and i just tear up. sniff
I've seen some people floating the idea that this ruling also nullifies that rollback, as the affordable care act does not allow discrimination of provision of care based on sex, and if this ruling is centered around the whether or not the word sex encompasses any characteristic of which sex is a part, then the same logic would apply to the ACA also.
> SCOTUS rulings are much more durable than executive actions though.
...and yet, they aren't meant to be. The system was designed such that the legislative branch would produce the most fundamental and enduring changes to our system of laws.
Looking to the SCOTUS to make legal/societal reforms is not only counter to the design, it's dangerous as it enables one branch to usurp the power of another.
Moreover because they are appointed for life and appointed by the president, this new paradigm effectively erodes the most deliberative and democratic institution we have - the Legislature.
It's sad to see such judicial advocacy so broadly applauded.
I suspect the reason the courts are so ready to act to change law, rather than arbitrate law, is a consequence of the ineffectiveness of congress. ...which is, in turn, a consequence of the political polarization worsening in America.
I wish we could return to an environment of more constructive in-depth discussions and less a war of emotional hyperbolic soundbites.
That ruling is dead on arrival now - it's only a matter of time before it's enjoined by federal district courts for directly contradicting the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant statutory language.
I tried to resurrect your parent post, but it remains dead. So I'll ask here instead.
> I expected to be downvoted by conservatives, but not this fast.
What makes you think that you were downvoted by conservatives? You probably were downvoted by people who disagreed with you, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that they are conservative. As someone else pointed out downthread, it seems equally likely that you would be downvoted for saying something that could be construed as positive about Trump, or for that matter by someone who felt that you should be downvoted for even mentioning his name. Or maybe you are right. I'd love for downvotes to require some sort of public attribution of reasoning to avoid amplification of misunderstanding.
