POSTED: #SCOTUS argument transcript in the sexual orientation cases (Bostock and Zarda), which waere heard first this morning: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments… 
BACKGROUND: My thread on these cases —>
PAM KARLAN, arguing for Bostock and Zarda, opened the arguments with crisp, clear, succinct, accessible discussion of how clear these cases should be:
Alito goes after the congressional inaction question. Karlan isn't having it.
Karlan's "thank you" at the end is because her time was up, but I choose to think of it as just an aggressive, "And, with that, I am done here."
It's so wild that any justice could find this argument, from Jeffrey Harris defending the alleged discriminating entities, to be compelling:
Here's Ginsburg, tearing apart Harris's argument:
Here's the Gorsuch part in the first argument, where he asks "in what linguistic formulation ... would one say that sex, biological gender, has nothing to do with what happened in this case?"
POSTED: #SCOTUS argument transcript in the gender identity case (RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes), which was heard second this morning: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
Here's @ZoeTillman's report out of #SCOTUS —>
The court is expected to have a ruling by June.
[I'll get back to the transcripts shortly.]
[I'll get back to the transcripts shortly.]
The argument of Jeffrey Harris, defending the entities sued in the sexual orientation cases, boiled down to this — with an assist from Alito.
Here was the fed'l govt's argument, by SG Noel Francisco, against protecting gay people from discrimination under sex discrimination laws: "[S]ex means whether you're male or female, not whether you're gay or straight."
Kagan runs around Francisco for a bit here.
But not before RBG did.
Noel: "So I guess I'm thinking of the wrong case."
:-(
Noel: "So I guess I'm thinking of the wrong case."
:-(
Ultimately, this is the US government's view and it's circular at best.
Karlan's rebuttal in the sexual orientation cases got a bit tricky, and I'm interested in seeing how others respond to this section of the argument:
NEXT UP: RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (Aimee Stephens' case): The gender identity case. They really were obsessed with bathrooms, so, congrats right-wingers, your fear-mongering made it up to the Supreme Court. The first question, from the Chief:
David Cole, from the ACLU, kept trying to shift it back, but the bathroom — and then the sports — questions kept coming. It wasn't until p. 19 of the transcript that he was really able to get to his point.
After Gorsuch asked about "the judicial role" and "judicial modesty" and concerns about "massive social upheaval" that could result from a decision, Cole really nailed it.
Here's where we *start* with the funeral home's lawyer, John Bursch, a go-to ideologue of the right who used to be Michigan's SG.
So, Bursch goes along for a while, saying mostly the things you'd guess, he then happened upon this, which is a statement that sounded like an absurd warning to most of the older people in the courtroom today — but is closer and closer to reality for more and more young people.
Like, does Johnny know that this line would have gotten C H E E R S from the folks outside the courtroom?
[I mean, he probably does and just thinks the fear still sells.]
[I mean, he probably does and just thinks the fear still sells.]
Bursch actually referred to "an unelected panel" of the 6th Circuit?!
OK, Donald J. Bursch.
OK, Donald J. Bursch.
Anyway, thankfully, his time eventually came to a close. Next up: SG Noel Francisco, Part 2.
[Note: Sort of unusual for him to argue both of these. I can't think of a time when the SG argued both cases on one day. (Perhaps my SCOTUS colleagues already addressed this.)]
[Note: Sort of unusual for him to argue both of these. I can't think of a time when the SG argued both cases on one day. (Perhaps my SCOTUS colleagues already addressed this.)]
Francisco really doesn't seem to get that the breadth of sex-stereotyping is not as simple as "stereotypes," which totally undercuts the law into only applying to more cartoonish-type behaviors.
DON'T WORRY, Justices Gorsuch, Ginsburg, and Kagan all came for him. (I said what I said.)
Then, Breyer dug in, and it ended with Francisco really giving an explanation of, basically, "no, just because we understand LGBTQ people differently now doesn't mean we should hold words that seem to protect them to actually do so" — and then RBG jumped in.
Finally, in Cole's rebuttal for Aimee Stephens, there were no questions. Here was his very strong opening:
