90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
90 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
443 readers
1 users here now
A safe space for GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minority) folk to discuss their lives, issues, interests, and passions. LGBT is still a popular term used to discuss gender and sexual minorities, but all GSRM are welcome beyond lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who consent to participate in a safe space
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Holy Fucking Shit.
That's a terrifying thing for a US Supreme Court Justice to say.
There's a lot to not like about Alito, but I'm not seeing a cause for concern in this one quote.
Rights for gays must be legally protected. Rights of women to control their own bodies cannot be compromised. The American experience for people of color cannot be a lessor version of what whites experience as codified by law.
There is no "splitting the difference" with homophobic, misogynistic, and racist people on the treatment of gays, women, and people of color.
The problem is that Alito is on the other side of those things and also holds a lot of power. “No compromise” to him means a lot of suffering for minority groups.
Thats a different problem, but it doesn't change that his statement one that both sides agree on. Its a statement of rationality, not of policy. Again, I'm not Alito defender, but we can't get wrapped around the axle on the definition of logic.
Words are shaped by their context and their intent. Alito is not being a broken clock here but rather just a fascist asshole.
I agree. In this case, and yes, he's likely thinking about the policy positions the polar opposite that you and I are. However, we all agree that there is no half solution on the rights of LGBTQ+ that any of the 3 of us would be okay with.
He's being both.
Is it? Are Supreme Court Justices supposed to be compromising, or are they supposed to interpret the written law?
Would you feel the same way if a liberal, pro-choice, pro-lgbt rights justice said the same thing about there being fundamental differences that can't be compromised?
I think it comes down to what those things are rather then not compromising. Not compromising on human rights, for instance, is great. Not compromising on if you can openly hate gay people due to your religion, not so great. If you feel child labour is required for a functional society, also not great. So it's chilling when someone in a high level of rule making says they don't believe they can compromise on their hatred.
Add to that they believe they are being persecuted and that their German heritage will explain how they will eventually react, and it becomes more chilling.
Sure, so the issue is not so much that a supreme court justice is saying such things, but which specific one is saying due to the beliefs he holds.
Yes, nuance matters quite a bit. Saying "man, I wish America was like the 50s" is fine if I believe all people should have a living wage and one person should be able to support a family on their wage. It's another thing if I feel that minorities have too many rights now.