Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

This is the biggest LGBT rights victory since gay marriage, and the biggest victory for transgender rights ever.

The Federalist Society must be absolutely furious that Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices. And it just got a lot harder for Trump to brag about his SCOTUS picks.

edit: lol, I expected to be downvoted by conservatives, but not this fast. You guys continue to amaze me. :)

View on HN

You're being downvoted due to being needlessly divisive and partisan. We should be able to discuss individual political events without turning it into an "us vs them" shitflinging contest.

As usual, completely baffling downvoting on HN.

I found this remark very appropriate. I didn't expect this from Gorsuch at all. If anything I would like this comment to be expanded (e.g. by adding context about the Federalist Society which I've never heard of)

I didn't vote but I'll venture to guess the comment's sort of cheer leading a cause / for / against various groups was the reason for the votes.

HN users tend to like things "distilled" a bit more, although maybe that's not the case and I just feel that way.

> I didn't vote but I'll venture to guess the comment's sort of cheer leading a cause / for / against various groups was the reason for the votes.

The way I read it, he's just saying that conservatives didn't expect Gorsuch's decision. That is not cheering anything.

The comment is gone now but I think it cited some specific groups that to me weren't obviously part of the case / didn't note their opinion, and outside that I'm not sure they really said much about expectations... more so cheer leading that disappointment those groups might feel.

Granted the more we parse a comment the less nonsensical this all gets ;)

I read it the opposite way. It looked like a comment celebrating the conservatives' loss more than one celebrating the progress made today. The edit confirmed it. A lot people here - regardless of political orientation - don't appreciate those types of comments, because they're not really about furthering discussion at all, but rather 'rubbing it in' to the side of the argument you don't like.

> It looked like a comment celebrating the conservatives' loss more than one celebrating the progress made today. The edit confirmed it. A lot people here - regardless of political orientation - don't appreciate those types of comments, because they're not really about furthering discussion at all, but rather 'rubbing it in' to the side of the argument you don't like.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thank you for explaining.

And now it's even flagged.

If you mention 'him' in a negative light, lots of downvotes.

> Federalist Society

They basically vet judges to serve as movement conservative activists on the Supreme Court. Looking for the "right" (and right-wing) stances, and complete absence of left-leaning progressive talk. Also kow-towing to corporate interests and displays of extreme loyalty to right-wing, corporate, "old boys", or evangelical thought are bonuses.

No critical comments of these topics is allowed on this site. It's the only tool that is left.

So, Trump gets the blame for appointing Kavanaugh, and not credit for appointing Gorsuch?

He would get credit if an outcome like this were his intent with the appointment — which it certainly was not. It would surprise nobody if words like "traitor" or "turncoat" were echoing through the White House halls this morning.

McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider Obama's nomination for the Court, so, were one to assign "blame" and "credit," I would say one should credit McConnell for Gorsuch, and not Trump.

Trump's intent was clear.

I think this has to do with the fact that the groups you mentioned are not necessarily against anything LGBT. Perhaps classical conservatives, but I don't think that would fit Trump voters. There is a large faction of LGBT that hate the politicization of their issues.

Politics = morals.

There is not a "large faction of LGBT that hate the politicization of their issues". In fact, I've never even heard of such a thing, or from my circle of LGBTQ friends and acquaintances.

Correct, that is why I believe this comment was downvoted. And of course it is politicized. Whole countries have declared their opposition just the last 5 years.

Trump is not anti-gay:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump...

https://www.advocate.com/2016/10/31/donald-trump-waves-lgbt-...

The media didn't publicize the historic event at the time because they hate Trump and want the voters to be misinformed.

Oh my, this point again. It is entirely possible to wave a flag on the campaign trail and then engage in a pattern of actions once in power that repeatedly and systematically materially harm the group whom that flag represents.

What do you call banning transgender people from the military and rolling back healthcare protections for the LGBT community if not anti-gay? Among many other decisions made by this administration.

Trump is absolutely anti-gay, and I say that as a gay man who voted for Trump and has since come to recognize that decision for the error that it was.

On the campaign trail, it was useful for him to pretend (sort of) the same concern for LGBTQ* people as for working-class people. Since winning the office, he has apparently found little utility in that pretense, and it has largely ceased to be maintained.

Granted, to say that Trump's "anti-gay" doesn't really capture the issue. It's not like he has it out for us in a special way, particularly. He doesn't seem to like anything or anyone who doesn't make him look good and feel good, and given the man's myriad deficiencies, that's just about everyone at this point. Without power, he'd be merely pitiable. It's a shame he is not yet without power.

Trump had lawyers involved in this case that were pushing for these protections to be denied to LGBTQ people.

From the article: "Trump’s administration and employers accused of discrimination in the cases argued that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect gay and transgender people when it passed the law."

> Trump is not anti-gay:

Which was asserted where?

It was implied here:

> And it just got a lot harder for Trump to brag about his SCOTUS picks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com