Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Sistemi Politici

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-23.

Supreme Court

Nei suoi ultimi cento pronunciamenti, la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha dovuto esaminare ben ottantanove ricorsi fatti da liberal democratici, per la maggior parte su problemi, veri o presunti tali, relativi a problemi sessuali. Non sanno pensare ad altro.

Gli americani ed il mondo attendono con pazienza che l’ondata si attenui e le Loro Giustizie possano riprendere le usuali occupazioni. Sono infatti pendenti numerose cause inerenti il commercio e gli usuali rapporti umani. Basterebbe solo pensare al contenzioso sorto a seguito dell’avvento dei dazi.

*

«The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.»

*

«The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”»

*

«The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” …. The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”»

*

«The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing»

*

«Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.»

* * * * * * *

Tanto per gradire, ci si dovrebbe ricordare che il 23 aprile sarà per la Suprema Corte una giornata impegnativa.

Supreme Court expands April 23 census arguments

«The Supreme Court says it will try to resolve all the legal issues about a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The justices on Friday are expanding their April 23 arguments to include whether asking about citizenship would violate the Constitution’s call for a once-a-decade count of all people, not just citizens. The court already was considering whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question is arbitrary and capricious under federal law.

The court is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling in New York that the decision violated federal law. Since then, a judge in California said a citizenship question also would violate the Constitution.

A final answer about a citizenship question is needed soon to allow printing of the census questionnaire.»

*

Questa sarà una decisione che ammetterà oppure escluderà dal voto decine di milioni di persone, immigrate illegalmente.

A nostro sommesso parere sarà una decisione ben più impegnativa di quella inerente una traversita.


The New York Times. 201-04-22. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Bias Law Covers Gay and Transgender Workers

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against gay and transgender workers.

The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbids employment discrimination based on sex. The question for the justices is whether that language bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.

The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing.

She sued and won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII.

“It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said, adding, “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

There is a second issue in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that could allow her to win however the Supreme Court might rule on whether Title VII applies to discrimination against transgender people. In 1989, the court said discrimination against workers because they did not conform to gender stereotypes was a form of sex discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ms. Stephens on that ground, too, saying she had been fired “for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the funeral home’s perception of how she should behave or appear based on her sex.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that Title VII bars discrimination against gay and transgender people. In recent briefs, the Trump administration has taken the opposite position.

Annunci

Un pensiero riguardo “Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

I commenti sono chiusi.