Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by duxup on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:26AM
(#23528302)
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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by doublesCs on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:30AM
(#23528369)
> 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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by duxup on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:40AM
(#23528570)
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 ;)
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by saxonww on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:39AM
(#23528545)
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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by doublesCs on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:43AM
(#23528613)
> 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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by KorfmannArno on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:28AM
(#23528333)
And now it's even flagged.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by davidw on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:32AM
(#23528400)
If you mention 'him' in a negative light, lots of downvotes.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote...
by afterburner on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:26AM
(#23528299)
> 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.
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)