- Joined
- May 17, 2019
... you were asleep.Extending a few token protections for queers isn't really much of an issue, especially since they were the de facto standard practices anyway.
Plus, most of the court-stacking has been in the lower and middle federal judiciary, where there were a lot of vacancies left by Obama because everyone assumed Hillary would be president in 2016
'Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California' (the DACA case) explicitly encodes a "rules for me but not for thee" stance. Democrats get to issue free passes from the law and give what they want without any restrictions, and when Republicans countermand the illegal order, then the Court says the illegal order stands forever because the countermanding gets struck down as "arbitrary and capricious".
'Bostock v. Clayton County' (the "LGBT discrimination") case, goes in for a full-throated endorsement of legislating from the bench, putting in a new category that was never there in the law itself.
The specific policy results aren't the worst thing about these rulings. It's the process. It's an open declaration of kritarchy from the court majority - no matter who you vote for, no matter what laws you get passed, no matter what regulations are pushed, a judge somewhere will issue a national injunction, and then three and a half years later the Supremes write whatever the hell they like. The left gets whatever they want, the right gets stalled and their laws rewritten. Under this system there is literally no legal way for a conservative to get policy put in place .