Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[coldseat]

I don't really have a problem with the SC ruling, but I think this lawsuit is bunk. We gays (or most other minority groups) do not have the numbers or power in government or the majority of other organizations to discriminate against the majority straight, white population in any wholesale or systemic way. Certainly not in the way straight, white people have used government to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people (we're seeing that now full force) and other minority groups.

Most likely the people in that case who made the decision to replace that lady and not promote her were straight, white people. But she probably listens to Fox News, so no doubt she believes is was reverse discrimination. That's probably why this standard existed, to prevent these frivolous lawsuits. But Republicans are hell bent on making sure we're the most litigious society in human history.

 

[Optimus Prime]

more on this

This specific instance may have a case but my larger issue is the pandora's box it will open (intentionally by Stephen Miller) that only reason a white person (especially white male) doesn't get a job or get a promotion and a minority does is because of reverse discrimination

Which we are already seeing with Trump and GOP blaming diversity for everything
==================================================

..........Ames says her boss, a gay woman, passed her over for a promotion and instead gave it to another gay woman who was less qualified. Ames says she was then demoted and a gay man who was also less qualified was given her position.

“She was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden she's not hired and someone's hired who’s gay, doesn't have her level of college experience and didn't even want the job,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said reciting facts in the case.

“Something suspicious about that. It certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination,” Sotomayor added.

Courts have previously relied on “background circumstances” when reviewing discrimination cases as they apply to majority groups. These standards require a person in a majority group to show that their employer is the “unusual one” that discriminates against members of majority groups.

These standards were set in 1981 and are used in more than half of the country’s federal appeals courts.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used the standards when reviewing, and ultimately deciding against Ames, in her case

However, the justices appeared mostly to agree that it was unfair to apply higher standards to those in majority groups when it comes to discrimination cases.

“It doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was “radical agreement” in the courtroom for that position.

If the court rules with Ames, it could make it easier for white people to bring claims of racial discrimination as a result of diversity, equity and inclusion policies – something President Donald Trump is determined to dismantle in the administration..........

Straight woman’s reverse discrimination case could open the door for similar lawsuits

Ohio woman who lost out on promotion to a gay woman is asking the Supreme Court to allow her to file a workplace discrimination lawsuit against her employer

www.the-independent.com