SCOTUS will not hear Virginia trans bathroom case.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Alito and Thomas dissenting from denial of certiorari, of course. This was the case involving Gavin Grimm, for the record.

[brucejoel99]

Honestly, the Court probably *should've* taken it up in light of Bostock just so they could get answering the question of whether or not Bostock applies to Title IX over with, given the back-&-forth on agency interpretation, but maybe they'd just rather wait for an actual circuit split (or for an athletic case rather than a case centered around bathrooms) instead.

[I’m not Stu]

Honestly, the Court probably *should've* taken it up in light of Bostock just so they could get answering the question of whether or not Bostock applies to Title IX over with, given the back-&-forth on agency interpretation, but maybe they'd just rather wait for an actual circuit split (or for an athletic case rather than a case centered around bathrooms) instead.

Maybe, but you know why Thomas and Alito wanted to hear it (to rule against Gavin Grimm).

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Maybe, but you know why Thomas and Alito wanted to hear it (to rule against Gavin Grimm).

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

Yeah, the 3 OMFG WE'RE DOOMED justices Trump appointed apparently weren't interested in ruling against Grimm.

[politicallefty]

Maybe, but you know why Thomas and Alito wanted to hear it (to rule against Gavin Grimm).

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

Yeah, the 3 OMFG WE'RE DOOMED justices Trump appointed apparently weren't interested in ruling against Grimm.

Not necessarily. All we know is that there were less than four Justices willing to take this case. It's possible there could have been a third Justice that was unwilling to go on record. We already know Kavanaugh was in dissent in Bostock.

As already mentioned above, I think the fact that there's no circuit split is the reason for denial. This case is very close to Bostock. This likely isn't the last attempt for this though. If you recall when the marriage equality cases were making their ways through the district and circuit courts, the Supreme Court was constantly denying review until the Sixth Circuit ruled the other way and the issue was forced. This isn't quite the same thing, but my point stands. I'd be stunned if Gorsuch didn't follow his own logic from Title VII to Title IX. I would, however, be quite nervous about raising Equal Protection Clause arguments to this Court. That worked when it was four liberals and Justice Kennedy (and also Justice O'Connor when she on the Court), but I strongly doubt it would now.

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

[Utah Neolib]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

Two

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

Two

I view it as one because if they allowed the replacement for Scalia in the last year then it would only be right to allow the replacement for RBG in the last year.  The problem was the GOP allowed one but not the other.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

I don't think anybody who's liable to forget this cares, and I don't think anybody who cares is liable to forget it.

[brucejoel99]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

Two

I view it as one because if they allowed the replacement for Scalia in the last year then it would only be right to allow the replacement for RBG in the last year.  The problem was the GOP allowed one but not the other.

Depends on how much one weighs "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed."

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

I don't think anybody who's liable to forget this cares, and I don't think anybody who cares is liable to forget it.

At the time, I thought it terrible that Merrick Garland was denied a up or down vote.  After seeing his performance as Attorney General and seeking to criminalize political dissent of parents at school board meetings using the most obscene hyperbole I thank God every day that he is not on the Supreme Court.

[DaleCooper]

The behavior of the Bush (1 & 2) judges, save Roberts, compared to the Trump ones is fascinating to me. It's not an excuse for modern-day conservatives by any means, but it goes to show just how extreme the Reagan lineage was.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The behavior of the Bush (1 & 2) judges, save Roberts, compared to the Trump ones is fascinating to me. It's not an excuse for modern-day conservatives by any means, but it goes to show just how extreme the Reagan lineage was.

Well keep in mind Trump's justices were more or less like Scalia who was a Reagan appointment. I think Scalia even commented once the main difference between him and Thomas is that Thomas doesn't believe in the idea of stare decisis.

[SnowLabrador]

This might seem like good news, but I think it's a sign that the Trump justices are trying to wait until we're not paying attention to the Supreme Court in order to go full right-wing on us.

[DaleCooper]

This might seem like good news, but I think it's a sign that the Trump justices are trying to wait until we're not paying attention to the Supreme Court in order to go full right-wing on us.

Why would they bother with this? They've already got their undemocratic lifetime appointments.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm surprised none of the Coney Barrett/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh trio were interested in hearing this.

They are trying to pretend to be normal people for a while so people forget that the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat.

I don't think anybody who's liable to forget this cares, and I don't think anybody who cares is liable to forget it.

At the time, I thought it terrible that Merrick Garland was denied a up or down vote.  After seeing his performance as Attorney General and seeking to criminalize political dissent of parents at school board meetings using the most obscene hyperbole I thank God every day that he is not on the Supreme Court.

Garland has been a pretty bad AG from both progressive and conservative perspectives, hasn't he? He grandstands on stuff like this and yet on heavy-duty quality-of-democracy issues his DOJ is nowhere to be seen.