Skip to main content

Harris v EEOC: Table of Case Comments in Chronological Order, Earliest Post First

Post 1
The Harris Case and This Blog
9/10/2018

Post 2

Introduction to the Harris Case, and Predictions:
Transgenderism Comes Tumblin' Down, Part 1
9/11/2018

Post 3

Disclaimers and Introduction:
Transgenderism Comes Tumblin' Down, Part 2
9/13/2018

Post 4

Facts of the Harris Case, Following the Sixth Circuit's
Statement:
Transgenderism Comes Tumblin' Down, Part 3
9/15/2018

Post 5

Sixth Circuit Appellate Opinion in Harris Case:
Transgenderism Comes Tumblin' Down, Part 4
9/22/2018

Post 6

Analysis of Harris Legal Issues and Petition for Writ of Certiorari:
Trangenderism Comes Tumblin' Down, Part 5
10/10/2018

Post 7

Harris Petition for Writ is on File: Will SCOTUS Take the Case?
1/14/2019

Post 8

Brief Update on Harris Petition for Writ of Certiorari
12/3/2018

Post 9

Harris Petition for Writ of Certiorari Still on Hold
12/27/18

Post 10

The Long Wait for SCOTUS to Grant or Decline Harris Petition
1/26/2019

Post 11

Writ of Certiorari in Harris, Zarda, Bostock Cases Granted
4/22/2019

Post 12

Note on Granting Of Cert in Trans/Sexual Orientation Case
4/22/2019

Post 13

Writs of Certiorari Granted in Harris, Zarda, Bostock Cases
4/22/2019

Post 14

NYT Article on Harris Case; Discussion of Trans Strategy of Cementing Trans into Sex Category of Civil Rights Act
4/26/2019

Post 15

Some Notes on the Interplay in US Women's Legal Battles
4/28/2019

Post 16

New Yorker Article: Trans Position Unlikely to Prevail in Harris Case
5/8/2019

Post 17

SCOTUS Declines to Hear Boyertown Case
5/28/2019

Post 18

GLAAD's Proposal for a Trans Constitutional Amendment
6/30/2019

Post 19

Consolidation of Harris with Sexual Orientation Cases and Predictions about
Outcomes
7/11/2019

Post 20

Updates and ADF/ACLU Takeover of Harris Litigation
8/9/2019

Post 21

Three Amicus Briefs Supporting the Employer//Respondent: EEOC/Solicitor General,
WoLF, and Harris Funeral Homes/ADF
8/18/2019

Post 22

WoLF's Amicus Brief, filed 8/20/2019
8/25/2019

Post 23

Symmetry, Asymmetry, Disparate Impact, and Standards of Proof in Sex Discrimination Cases
8/26/2019

Post 24

ACLU Amicus Brief; Postmodernist Basis of Trans Arguments Opposed to Material Conditions of Oppressed Classes
8/27/2019

Post 25

From the Amicus Brief I Wish I'd Written in the Harris Case
9/23/2019

Post 26

Some Notes On Women's Underrepresentation in Supreme Court Practice, the
Religious v. Secular Legal War overall, and the ADF in Particular: Part 1
10/16/19

Post 27

Placing Bets on the Outcome of the Harris Case
10/18/19

Post 28

Some Thoughts on U.S. Religious Right Political Philosophy: Placing Religion above Statutory Civil Rights
11/6/19






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wow! What a Finish! The Gilead Court Guts US Women's Rights in a Neat Three-Play Touchdown in the Last Ten Seconds of the 2020 Term

Nobody ever said Team Gilead had bad coaching, and the team had brought in a new quarterback and tight end during the previous term. But Team Gilead surpassed all bets, rolling over Team Women in a surprise end-run in the last ten seconds before the season adjourned. A real play-by-play of the season-ender isn't available, because Team Gilead played it close to the chest and the commentary they put out about the plays (called "Opinions") is just a pile of bullshit. But we watched the game and noticed a few things: PLAY ONE: Bostock v Clayton County   Justice Roberts passed the ball to Justice Gorsuch and timeout was called for some judicial deliberation. Gorsuch huddled with Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. He said Roberts was willing to let him use his pet Scalian method, and that Team Women would give up five yards for a "win" of any kind. The other three hated the idea, but Gorsuch promised Alito his dissent could be as long and droning as he wanted, a

Chinks Where Women Can Hide in the Bostock Age to Come

This is a very early reaction to the question, What will be the implications for women as a class over the next ten or twenty years, of the US Supreme Court case holding in Bostock v. Clayton County (June 15, 2010)? Here is the holding of the Bostock case, in its simplest and most devastating form. The Court held:  "...it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. " The elevation of rights of LGB people to federal protection do not affect the rights of women to safety, privacy, and bodily sovereignty. But the elevation of transgender status to the protective sex category of Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and, by implication and the rule of controlling cases, to all similarly-structured federal protective statutes as well as state statutes) does negatively affect women's rights. The problem with placing both the rights of transgender biological males

The Limits of Textualism In the US Supreme Court's Bostock Decision

I'm becoming a fan of Pulitzer Prize winner Linda Greenhouse, a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. The June 15 Bostock Opinion  written by Justice Neil Gorsuch shocked me for many reasons she touches on in the article below, which I'm pulling from its paywall and posting below. I agree especially with her assessment that Justice Gorsuch was more interested in self-aggrandizement than ideology of left or right; that "textualism" or "originalism" as a method of statutory construction is a sad diminishment of real judging and that the method allows for almost any decision to be made in any case. Neil Gorsuch decided the three associated cases, involving matters of huge moment for a large percentage of the American population, based on parsing the meaning of "because of sex" in the language of Title VII. He decided that phrase means "because of sex or anything necessarily related to sex", including the will o' the wisp