DOJ Says Title VII Doesn’t Protect Gays

[Okeefenokee]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

The point in question isn't actually settled law yet, and if you think this is the first time the DOJ has filed an amicus brief, you're woefully mistaken.

Come one Grumps, this is your calling. Tell him how it is.

[Fife]

[Penner]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

Why does to government play elementary school teacher in 2017? If adults don't want to be near each other don't force them.

I have to ask- what are you smoking?

[Penner]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

The point in question isn't actually settled law yet, and if you think this is the first time the DOJ has filed an amicus brief, you're woefully mistaken.

I kind of agree with GrumpyCat that this is kind of a waste of time for the DOJ/Feds. Especially since this is so low on the totem pole in regards to the fact that this is such a low-level court decision that the DOJ could've waited until it got a bit higher up on the chain.

[de officiis]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

The point in question isn't actually settled law yet, and if you think this is the first time the DOJ has filed an amicus brief, you're woefully mistaken.

I kind of agree with GrumpyCat that this is kind of a waste of time for the DOJ/Feds. Especially since this is so low on the totem pole in regards to the fact that this is such a low-level court decision that the DOJ could've waited until it got a bit higher up on the chain.

I don't really have a strong opinion on it. There are rules that govern when these amicus briefs can be filed and you tend to see them more often when a case is on appeal. Sometimes one of the parties will try to get an amicus involved. Generally they aren't automatically allowed, and any party can oppose their filing. They usually don't show up in run of the mill cases. Sometimes the judge welcomes getting additional views on a nettlesome legal issue. There are a lot of factors that can be involved in whether or not they are filed.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

Why does to government play elementary school teacher in 2017? If adults don't want to be near each other don't force them.

I have to ask- what are you smoking?

How long ahould anti discrimination laws last? What are they needed for?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Why does to government play elementary school teacher in 2017? If adults don't want to be near each other don't force them.

I have to ask- what are you smoking?

How long ahould anti discrimination laws last? What are they needed for?

Anti-discrimination is fine. Quotas are not.

[Okeefenokee]

Why does to government play elementary school teacher in 2017? If adults don't want to be near each other don't force them.

I have to ask- what are you smoking?

How long ahould anti discrimination laws last? What are they needed for?

Which is something that has already gone before the supreme court.

On November 9, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Shelby County v. Holder limited to the question of "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) ... exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, thus violating the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution".[137][138] On June 25, 2013, the Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional.[11][96] The Court reasoned that the coverage formula violates the constitutional principles of "equal sovereignty of the states" and federalism because its disparate treatment of the states is "based on 40 year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day", which makes the formula unresponsive to current needs.[11][95] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction may be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.[12] After the decision, several states that were fully or partially covered—including Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina—implemented laws that were previously denied preclearance. This prompted new legal challenges to these laws under other provisions unaffected by the Court's decision, such as Section 2.