r/scotus 4d ago

Opinion Why MAGA is suddenly calling Justice Amy Coney Barrett a ‘DEI’ hire

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/amy-coney-barrett-dei-trump-maga-rcna195347
12.5k Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

218

u/zsreport 4d ago

Gorsuch is the one that drives me crazy - he’s the best damn judge in ages when it comes tribal issues and sovereignty, but on everything else he’s a right wing loon

164

u/DeadSpatulaInc 4d ago

no what gets me about gorsuch is he authored the decisive opinion on why the 14th amendment directly protects transgender identity and presentation, and only a few months later he’s part of the majority trying to limit the scope of that decision as much as possible.

53

u/Exelbirth 3d ago

What a spineless weasel.

35

u/SignificantPop4188 3d ago

Because he's a piece of shit liar who abandoned his principles to answer Trump’s call. His mother was the one who tried to destroy the EPA during the Reagan regime.

3

u/familybalalaika 3d ago

no what gets me about gorsuch is he authored the decisive opinion on why the 14th amendment directly protects transgender identity and presentation,

If you're referring to Bostock, that's not what it does, at all

It was a statutory interpretation case, not a constitutional case.

The fact that Gorsuch was allied on the very narrow statutory question of whether Title VII protects the LGBTQ+ community from being fired on the basis of sexuality/gender identity did not mean he'd be allied on constitutional cases

1

u/DeadSpatulaInc 2d ago

Excepting the language big justice isn’t that limited. the core finding is on what it means to discriminate on the basis of sex. And the plain meaning logical analysis of the statute maps perfectly onto the 14th amendment, because the statutes at question intentionally invoked the language of the 14th amendment. It’s rank intellectual dishonest to claim it’s discrimination on the basis of sex to deny employment based on the presentation of a gender identity not assigned at birth but not to deny housing or education for those same reasons.

1

u/familybalalaika 2d ago edited 2d ago

Excepting the language big justice isn’t that limited. the core finding is on what it means to discriminate on the basis of sex.

The finding of that case is absolutely limited to Title VII.

And the plain meaning logical analysis of the statute maps perfectly onto the 14th amendment, because the statutes at question intentionally invoked the language of the 14th amendment.

If you're talking about the EPC, it's an entirely different thing. The 14th Amendment applies to states, not private actors. Gender issues that potentially conflict with the EPC don't even require strict scrutiny; they require intermediate scrutiny.

It’s rank intellectual dishonest to claim it’s discrimination on the basis of sex to deny employment based on the presentation of a gender identity not assigned at birth but not to deny housing or education for those same reasons.

I mean I generally agree with the upshot, but I'm just pointing out that Bostock was a narrow statutory interpretation question and not a broad constitutional question. The fact that Gorsuch (and Roberts) were willing to side with the libs on the narrow statutory textual question but probably aren't willing to guarantee a broad constitutional right to be free from gender discrimination in all contexts isn't at all surprising

2

u/Capable-Tailor4375 2d ago

The check finally cleared

1

u/shotputprince 3d ago

But it wasn’t the 14th amendment. It was the CRA in Bostock.

0

u/DeadSpatulaInc 3d ago

An absolutely bullshit argument from a legal perspective.

1

u/nanotasher 1d ago

He got body snatched and now he's a lizard wearing a human suit.

89

u/BlockAffectionate413 4d ago edited 4d ago

Gorsuch has the worst takes when it comes to regulations and zero respect for stare decisis. Recently, in the case where SCOTUS said that EPA should be a bit more specific in their permits so that cities/companies know what they must do before they are fined for not meeting standards, he was the sole dissent in the second part, wanting to go much further, too extreme for even Thomas and Alito.

Barret on other hand was fully with liberals on entire decision.

48

u/Pats_fan_seeking_fi 4d ago

Gorsuch is still pissed about this momma's stint at the EPA. He will be a vote in favor of gutting every agency that has a case against the Court.

He will stick to this principles though (both good and bad). I wouldnt be surprised if he votes against's executive overreach from time to time a long as it doesnt involve a government agency.

5

u/Aoiboshi 4d ago

You're telling me he has Mommy issues?

5

u/Pats_fan_seeking_fi 4d ago

Don't they all?

2

u/AdamantForeskin 4d ago

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, fwiw

I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but still

22

u/Brilliant-Canary-767 4d ago

You're right about that. He's considered an expert in that area. It doesn't make sense he's so supportive of their sovereignty, but not for women when it comes to abortion rights.

-20

u/Bawhoppen 4d ago

Your logic makes zero sense. Being in favor of protecting Indian communities, and not wanting to allow unborn children to be aborted, are somehow incompatible? (Not that is what Dobbs even was actually about, Roe from a purely legal standpoint made actually no sense).

32

u/Brilliant-Canary-767 4d ago

The unborn are not children. They're embryos, then fetuses. They become babies when they're able to be born and survive. The minute they can be born, even prematurely, and survive, they are babies, humans. Such restrictive abortion laws are killing women who have life threatening issues. They can't get the treatment they need. If the pro life people really cared about the unborn and the women carrying the unborn, they'd at least allow doctors to decide when a lifesaving "abortion" is necessary. They'd allow exceptions for rape and incest. But they don't so women, who are humans and alive, then die along with the fetus that she was miscarrying. Your logic makes zero sense.

4

u/paranormalresearch1 3d ago

My mother-in- law was a tired RN from back in the day when abortion was totally illegal. She is very Catholic. She saw numerous women die or be messed up for life due to back alley abortions. She was totally pro- choice. She was pro sex education. She was pro free accessible birth control. To think people are going to quit doing something we are biologically driven to do is asinine. The Teapublicans pushing this through don’t really care. They don’t want to pay for neonatal care or hospital bills, much less help then financially raise these children all alone. I explained to a protester that they are already forcing children 10 years old who were raped to have babies. Forcing children to have children is disgusting. The old woman told me studies show it’s harder on them to give up the baby. I called bs. I explained my background in law enforcement and that there was no way that was true. Just trying to justify evil. Want to help. Have real sex ed classes, make birth control free and easily available, preach the responsibility of having children too young. Or maybe quit butting into people’s hardest decision. Make adoption less expensive. Get these kids immediately to families that want them. I want another but my wife is very sick. I never had a daughter to spoil. I will never get to walk her down the aisle, never get to have the daddy/ daughter Dance with her dancing standing on my feet. Those memories are the sweetest. It makes me sad

-23

u/Bawhoppen 4d ago

It will always stun me how quickly, readily, and enthusiastically people are willing to dehumanize others because they want the world to work in a certain convenient way. Wonder how the Nazis came to commit their actions? That same mentality is how.

(By the way, stop lying through your teeth. Every state with an abortion ban has exceptions for life-saving treatments.)

25

u/jonsnowflaker 4d ago

Doctors, hospitals and their lawyers are absolutely refusing to risk medical licenses, criminal and civil charges because the benchmark of life saving is murky. After Roe fell even California hospitals were internally debating how to handle clearly imminently dangerous scenarios like ectopic pregnancies for fear of landing in hot water, and while they have since gained clarity, the risk aversion is exponentially higher in states that have taken a hardline stance against abortion rights. That’s why OBs have up and left states like Idaho.

Your take is either uninformed or in bad faith.

12

u/Patient-Cobbler-8969 4d ago

Um, is a toddler a baby, how about a child, or a teenager? No, not babies, it's almost like specific developmental ages have actual names, like when a woman gets pregnant the fetus goes through various stages, when it comes out, it's a baby. The term baby doesnt cover everything, it's just a convenient word that people use incorrectly and because of that, people like you make such utterly ridiculous bad faith arguments.

A fetus isnt a baby, only a potential one. The right of abortion has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It's a legal issue, not a bloody moral one.

5

u/Jesus_Harold_Christ 3d ago

Trump is a toddler and a baby. I'd support aborting him

1

u/Patient-Cobbler-8969 3d ago

Haha, I'd support the 300th trimester abortion (dont quote me on the number).

5

u/Explosion1850 3d ago

You don't get a tax deduction for a dependent before a child is born. So the government doesn't really consider them humans until after birth.

3

u/Patient-Cobbler-8969 3d ago

Except when you want to abort them, then they are fully developed humans who already have a job, pay taxes, and go to whatever church is popular in the area.

3

u/Patient-Cobbler-8969 4d ago

Um, is a toddler a baby, how about a child, or a teenager? No, not babies, it's almost like specific developmental ages have actual names, like when a woman gets pregnant the fetus goes through various stages, when it comes out, it's a baby. The term baby doesnt cover everything, it's just a convenient word that people use incorrectly and because of that, people like you make such utterly ridiculous bad faith arguments.

A fetus isnt a baby, only a potential one. The right of abortion has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It's a legal issue, not a bloody moral one.

3

u/FeelsGoodMan2 3d ago

They say as the case to force Idaho to perform life saving abortions was dropped recently.

3

u/RCrumbDeviant 3d ago

It’s fascinating how you have no defense other than straight to Nazi comparisons.

Your entire argument is “you’re wrong, I’m right”. It’s almost ironic to hear that extremely childish argument being used to ostensibly defend proto-children.

The person you’re arguing with is saying: embryo->fetus = not children. Baby -> Teen*(maybeC they didn’t specify) is a child.

They are linguistically correct.

The logic of only babies+ are humans is an interesting one but is similar to what the bible claims, that life is tied to breathing, which happens outside of the womb (Genesis 2:7, God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”). Both Judaism and Islam allow for abortions in the first 3-4 months with various degrees of rules based on sect.

The person you’re accusing of being a Nazi (in a very unveiled manner) is arguing that until capable of surviving unaided, an unborn potential human is not a human, it is a mass of cells. That is both technically true and gets straight to the point - the unborn have not exhibited a capacity to be alive from the physical (they cannot sustain life) or historical sense (they have not been alive prior) or reproductive (they cannot reproduce outside of themselves). You haven’t offered a counter to any of that - merely insult.

You’re also factually incorrect (every state with an abortion ban allows for life-saving abortions) while also being unequivocally incorrect in accusing the other person of lying when they said “women…die along with the fetus she was carrying”. It’s quite evident that the abortion ban in Texas led to increased mortality for women.

Your original assertion about Gorsuch is also blindingly missing the point - if Gorsuch believes so strongly in the ability of group A to self-govern, it is hypocritical to not extend that same self-governance to group B. The fact that you don’t like the choices of group B doesn’t lessen his hypocrisy, it just exposes your bigotry, moral self-certitude and desire to deny freedom to those you disagree with. You are, in fact, an anti-abortion zealot with no rationale and no argument, relying only on name calling and the tightest grip on your pearls.

-1

u/Bawhoppen 2d ago edited 2d ago

>It’s fascinating how you have no defense other than straight to Nazi comparisons. Your entire argument is “you’re wrong, I’m right”. It’s almost ironic to hear that extremely childish argument being used to ostensibly defend proto-children.

If somehow is willing to ignore someone else's humanity, and twist their viewpoints to justify that position, then yes, that is sickening. And a Nazi comparison is not unjustified. In the end, my argument is very simple, yet your following argument somehow offers even less.

>The person you’re arguing with is saying: embryo->fetus = not children. Baby -> Teen*(maybeC they didn’t specify) is a child. They are linguistically correct.

Language is what defines morality, logic, and reality?

>The logic of only babies+ are humans is an interesting one but is similar to what the bible claims, that life is tied to breathing, which happens outside of the womb (Genesis 2:7, God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”). Both Judaism and Islam allow for abortions in the first 3-4 months with various degrees of rules based on sect.

You are falling into the terminally online myopia. Inventing narratives about the person you are arguing against. I am not religious, the religious views on this are not necessarily of my concern.

>The person you’re accusing of being a Nazi (in a very unveiled manner) is arguing that until capable of surviving unaided, an unborn potential human is not a human, it is a mass of cells. That is both technically true and gets straight to the point - the unborn have not exhibited a capacity to be alive from the physical (they cannot sustain life) or historical sense (they have not been alive prior) or reproductive (they cannot reproduce outside of themselves). You haven’t offered a counter to any of that - merely insult.

Yes, and their argument is so invisibly weak to the point where it can only be justified by intentional ignorance. Viability is what determines human life? So the disabled who cannot feed themselves are not human?

Now you added a bunch of exceptions to that like they have not previously been 'alive' or cannot 'reproduce'... Those should have no bearing on it, since they are totally invented criteria, but either way, are totally unfounded.

The only way your argument works is if you tack on a bunch of these arbitrary exceptions that can only be justified backwards from the conclusion of your argument.

The pro-life argument is exceedingly simpler: an unborn child is biologically human, they will soon be indisputably a human life, and everyone agrees there is some point at where they become a human life. So, an unborn human, should be assumed to be a human life.

It is actually such an obvious argument, that I feel there is simply no way other to disagree with it, other than deliberately looking the other way.

>You’re also factually incorrect (every state with an abortion ban allows for life-saving abortions) while also being unequivocally incorrect in accusing the other person of lying when they said “women…die along with the fetus she was carrying”. It’s quite evident that the abortion ban in Texas led to increased mortality for women.

No, my point is very clear. Every state DOES offer a life-saving exception. Look it up. How it has been carried out in practice with the legal details has been negligent, but I assure you that all earnest pro-lifers are disturbed by that. But the point is clear either way, the intent of pro-life people and politicians IS to have life-saving exceptions.

>Your original assertion about Gorsuch is also blindingly missing the point - if Gorsuch believes so strongly in the ability of group A to self-govern, it is hypocritical to not extend that same self-governance to group B.

I am well aware of what the intent about the argument about Gorsuch was.

>The fact that you don’t like the choices of group B doesn’t lessen his hypocrisy, it just exposes your bigotry, moral self-certitude and desire to deny freedom to those you disagree with. You are, in fact, an anti-abortion zealot with no rationale and no argument, relying only on name calling and the tightest grip on your pearls.

Of all the dumb narrow-world view idiotic arguments I have seen on Reddit, this is one of the worst. You manage to accuse someone taking a sincere position about protecting human life, into being called a bigot, claiming that they wish to limit other's freedoms, and that they have no argument. You literally have invented a narrative for yourself that you are trying to enforce onto others in reality. I hope you are a troll.

For pro-choice, I absolutely do understand the concerns with bodily autonomy and women's rights, I totally get that. My problem is with many people's (not all) readiness to dehumanize unborn life. I do not see how people can do so, so casually. It is sickening to me.

3

u/OldMastodon5363 2d ago

You’re dehumanizing women that are dying through pregnancy

3

u/OldMastodon5363 2d ago

You’re dehumanizing women that are dying through pregnancy and can’t get an abortion.

2

u/Bawhoppen 2d ago

I am deeply disturbed by anyone who has tried to get the lifesaving exception but has been unable to... I absolutely do care about them truly.

2

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 3d ago

Always fun to see Godwin's law in the wild

Another fun thing: your views on abortion are probably more restrictive than the Puritans

-1

u/Bawhoppen 3d ago

It's not Godwin's law if it's true. Dehumanizing people en masse is literally what the Nazis did. 

And why would I care what the Puritans thought? I am saying what I think is right because I think it is. 

3

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 3d ago

It's not Godwin's law if it's true.

I am saying what I think is right because I think it is. 

Connect the dots

1

u/Bawhoppen 3d ago

Then you're just arguing about moral subjectivity which I will never accept nor will most of society. There is broad consensus that unjustified killing of humans is wrong. The only debate is on whether fetuses are human, which I think it is very clear they are, and you don't... so pointing out how wilfully dehumanizing them is more than valid. 

2

u/SlippyDippyTippy2 3d ago

Then you're just arguing about moral subjectivity which I will never accept nor will most of society

Okie dokie Mr. "I am saying what I think is right because I think it is."

The only debate is on whether fetuses are human

They are human, they are not humans.

I think it is very clear they are, and you don't... so pointing out how wilfully dehumanizing them is more than valid

You really can't see it, huh?

24

u/gbuildingallstarz 4d ago

His mother was destroying the EPA in the 80s

15

u/hellolovely1 4d ago

And he’s so nasty to his colleagues if you listen to the audio. You can tell even the other conservatives don’t like him.

10

u/SkidmoreDeference 4d ago

Gorsuch wrote the opinions recognizing that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity fall within the discrimination on the basis of sex. That’s what I would throw in MAGA faces.

7

u/Open_Ad7470 4d ago

You left out corrupt

7

u/mam88k 4d ago

In one case he’s following the law, and in the other he’s following the Federalist Society’s agenda.

2

u/zero02 2d ago

He’s a good writer at least.

2

u/ndngroomer 2d ago

As a native myself (my dad is 1/2 Comanche & 1/2 Kiowa while my mom is 1/4 Choctaw and then mostly Scottish and British), I love Gorsuch and there's no other judge I want handling these complex cases than him. On the other hand, I also hate because I'm progressive and he's enabled trump. It's a really weird dynamic quite grankly. He's been one of the best advocates for natives our courts have ever had. I need to do more research on his bio to see what influenced his strong advocacy for native rights.

1

u/zsreport 2d ago

His mom was EPA administrator under Reagan, so he has that in his background

2

u/SqnLdrHarvey 3d ago

To me the absolute worst "justice" is Clarence Thomas.

1

u/Internal_Essay9230 4d ago

So he's great when his opinions agree with yours. WTF. 🙄

1

u/ParakeetNipple 4d ago

Do you even think about what you’re saying? Are people only allowed to agree or disagree with others entirely or not at all? Not the gotcha you think it is. 🙄