Bostock v. Clayton County Law Case

Do you agree or disagree? & Why? What additional points or ideas would you want to bring up?

In listening to the oral argument in Bostock v. Clayton County, discuss points made by one of the Justices or attorneys that is interesting or persuasive.

They were all rather persuasive. This is not the first oral argument listened to, but this case again makes clear what an incredibly complex job the attorneys and Justices have, and in most cases how learned and well prepared all involved are. Armed with both the ability to stop and start the oral arguments and read the written transcript, it is still quite a task for a novice to follow all of the logic and reasoning. All of the cases mentioned in spitfire fashion just boggle the mind. It does make one appreciate the depth of knowledge required to swim in these legal waters.

Attorney Karlan did an excellent job of framing her argument as both simple to understand and simple to rule on.

Her clearest point was in response to questioning by Justice Alito, and earlier Justice Ginsburg, about how in 1964 Congress would not likely have been considering sexual orientation. Just sex. Same sex relations were at the time illegal in some states. Karlan's reasoning, ostensibly to keep the court focused on the sex discrimination clearly outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, is that you can ignore sexual orientation entirely and find that men and women were treated differently. As a result, Title VII has been violated, based solely on disparate treatment based on sex.

https://www.supremecourt.gov