RadioRob

Lack of Supreme Court Term Limits, lifetime tenure, has pushed the average age of judicial nominees down as presidents appoint younger justices in hopes they will serve for many decades. Erin Schaff/Pool/AFP via Getty Images Pressure on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to step down will likely grow now that the court’s session has ended. Breyer, 82, joined the court in 1994. His retirement would allow President Joe Biden to nominate his successor and give Democrats another liberal justice, if confirmed. Supreme Court justices in the U.S. enjoy life tenure. Under Article 3 of the Constitution, justices cannot be forced out of office against their will, barring impeachment. This provision, which followed the precedent of Great Britain, is meant to ensure judicial independence, allowing judges to render decisions based on their best understandings of the law – free from political, social and electoral influences. Our extensive research on the Supreme Court shows life tenure, while well-intended, has had unforeseen consequences. It skews how the confirmation process and judicial decision-making work, and causes justices who want to retire to behave like political operatives. Problems with lifetime tenure Life tenure has motivated presidents to pick younger and younger justices. In the post-World War II era, presidents generally forgo appointing jurists in their 60s, who would bring a great deal of experience, and instead nominate judges in their 40s or 50s, who could serve on the court for many decades. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images And they do. Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush at age 43 in 1991 and famously said he would serve for 43 years. There’s another 13 years until his promise is met. The court’s newest member, Donald Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett, was 48 when she took her seat in late 2020 after the death of 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee who joined the court at age 60 in 1993, refused to retire. When liberals pressed her to step down during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama to ensure a like-minded replacement, she protested: “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?” Partisanship problems Justices change during their decades on the bench, research shows. Justices who at the time of their confirmation espoused views that reflected the general public, the Senate and the president who appointed them tend to move away from those preferences over time. They become more ideological, focused on putting their own policy preferences into law. For example, Ginsburg grew more liberal over time, while Thomas has become more conservative. Other Americans’ political preferences tend to be stable throughout their lives. The consequence is that Supreme Court justices may no longer reflect the America they preside over. This can be problematic. If the court were to routinely stray too far from the public’s values, the public could reject its dictates. The Supreme Court relies on public confidence to maintain its legitimacy. Life tenure has also turned staffing the Supreme Court into an increasingly partisan process, politicizing one of the nation’s most powerful institutions. In the 1980s and 1990s, Supreme Court nominees could generally expect large, bipartisan support in the Senate. Today, judicial confirmation votes are almost strictly down party lines. Public support for judicial nominees also shows large differences between Democrats and Republicans. Life tenure can turn supposedly independent judges into political players who attempt to time their departures to secure their preferred successors, as Justice Anthony Kennedy did in 2018. Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh, one of Kennedy’s former clerks, to replace him. Justice Anthony Kennedy receiving the 2019 Liberty Medal from Justice Neil Gorsuch. William Thomas Cain/Getty Images The proposed solution Many Supreme Court experts have coalesced around a solution to these problems: staggered, 18-year terms with a vacancy automatically occurring every two years in nonelection years. This system would promote judicial legitimacy, they argue, by taking departure decisions out of the justices’ hands. It would help insulate the court from becoming a campaign issue because vacancies would no longer arise during election years. And it would preserve judicial independence by shielding the court from political calls to fundamentally alter the institution. Partisanship would still tinge the selection and confirmation of judges by the president and Senate, however, and ideological extremists could still reach the Supreme Court. But they would be limited to 18-year terms. The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the world’s few high courts to have life tenure. Almost all democratic nations have either fixed terms or mandatory retirement ages for their top judges. Foreign courts have encountered few problems with term limits. Even England – the country on which the U.S. model is based – no longer grants its Supreme Court justices life tenure. They must now retire at 70. Similarly, although many U.S. states initially granted their supreme court judges life tenure, this changed during the Jacksonian era of the 1810s to 1840s when states sought to increase the accountability of the judicial branch. Today, only supreme court judges in Rhode Island have life tenure. All other states either have mandatory retirement ages or let voters choose when judges leave the bench through judicial elections. Back in 1894, the Supreme Court was older – not to mention whiter and all male. C.M. Bell/Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images Polling consistently shows a large bipartisan majority of Americans support ending life tenure. This likely reflects eroding public confidence as the court routinely issues decisions down partisan lines on the day’s most controversial issues. Although ideology has long influenced Supreme Court decisions, today’s court is unusual because all the conservative justices are Republicans and all the liberal justices are Democrats. In April 2021, President Biden formed a committee to examine reforming the Supreme Court, including term-limiting justices. To end the justices’ life tenure would likely mean a constitutional amendment requiring approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of U.S. states. Ultimately, Congress, the states and the public they represent will decide whether the country’s centuries-old lifetime tenure system still serves the needs of the American people. [The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.] Paul M. Collins, Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Artemus Ward, Professor of Political Science, Northern Illinois University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Supreme Court Term Limits previously on Towleroad When A Trans Haven Got Violent Threats, The Residents of ‘Tenacious Unicorn Ranch,’ Felt The Police Could Not Be Trusted to Help. Then What? July 16, 2021 Read More ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars’ Season 6 Spills Tea All Over the Pink Table July 16, 2021 Read More Supreme Court LGBTQ: This Season’s Final Report: Minor Victories, Could-Have-Been-Worse Losses, Trepidation About Future July 16, 2021 Read More 11 Must-See Miami Spots for Gay Travelers with Children July 14, 2021 Read More Happy Bastille Day? C’est Compliqué. French Ambiguity Lets You Celebrate Storming The Bastille, National Unity, Or A New York Restauarant July 14, 2021 Read More Billy Porter Pose: Found Growth Playing Pray There’s ‘a whole generation of us who haven’t really been able to process what happened.’ July 14, 2021 Read More Load More View the full article

Published by Reuters By Leah Millis WESTCLIFFE, Colorado (Reuters) -The ranch hand walks along rocky ground, the beam of her flashlight cutting through the moonlit night. She holds a shotgun loosely at her side during her patrol of an alpaca ranch founded as a haven for transgender and non-binary people. Penny Logue, who grew up on a farm, started the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch in Colorado in 2018. It had been two years since Logue had begun her transition and the U.S. Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, had just declared 2017 the deadliest documented year so far for members of the trans and gender non-conforming community, with 31 people killed. Logue says she saw that many in the LGBTQ community had nowhere to feel safe and struggled to find employment, housing, and peace of mind. “You have people that are brilliant, that just can’t interact with society in a normal way,” Logue says. “They just get shoved down every time they pop their head up and you watch it over and over and over again.” Logue initially rented a ranch in northern Colorado to raise alpacas, whose wool is sold as a prized weaving material. In March 2020 the operation moved just outside the small town of Westcliffe in southern Colorado with 86 alpaca, 20 chickens, 40 ducks, several dogs and cats, and nine people. On the ranch, gender is never assumed. Inhabitants are free to love who they love and be who they are. Rainbow and anti-fascist flags adorn the walls, including one featuring the three arrows of the World War II-era German anti-Nazi, anti-fascist Iron Front. “I got here and I experienced a love and acceptance that I never did before,” says ranch co-owner Bonnie Nelson. “I had true family for the first time.” AN UNSETTLING DEMONSTRATION As they settled into Custer County, the newcomers offered to do odd jobs for neighbors, started a community garden, and helped helm a recycling program. Logue says that won them a number of residents’ support, despite some ideological differences with conservative Custer County, home to about 5,000 people. On July 4, 2020, Logue and Nelson headed into town for coffee at their favorite spot. The Westcliffe Independence parade had been canceled because of pandemic restrictions. Logue and Nelson saw a steady stream of protesters, a number of whom were openly carrying guns. Some wore body armor. Amid American flags, one demonstrator carried a banner bearing the emblem of right-wing militia group the Three Percenters, video of the event shows. Another wore a shirt that declared, ‘It’s OK to be White.’ The phrase, according to the Anti-Defamation League, has become a rallying cry among white supremacists. Logue said she was the grandchild of Armenian genocide survivors and grew up on stories that taught her to respond to “anything that looks like fascism.” She wrote in a tweet that same day: “The Fourth of July parade in #westcliffe was a Nazi propaganda parade, I’ve never been so unsettled.” Messages and calls expressing transphobic hatred and disdain for the ranchers’ anti-fascism began then, according to Logue. Reuters has reviewed several hostile and anonymous online messages, two containing death threats. One was an image manipulated to show a gun pointed at the ranch house. In March, a volunteer escorted two armed men away at gunpoint after they were spotted climbing the hill toward the ranch house, Logue says. The identity of the men is unknown. The ranchers talked about the hostility in media interviews, hoping increased attention would scare off harassers. Logue says they installed cameras, obtained body armor, began to build a taller fence, and stepped up firearms training. The ranchers have not reported any of the threats to the Custer County Sheriff’s Department. The ranchers said they declined to do so in part because they had seen Custer County Sheriff Shannon Byerly in a video speaking at a 2015 rally held near Westcliffe on the anniversary of the founding of the right-wing Oath Keepers, whose members believe the federal government is encroaching on their rights and who try to recruit, among others, law enforcement officers. Byerly confirmed to Reuters that he spoke at the rally, but said that he does not belong to the Oath Keepers. In the speech, a video of which was reviewed by Reuters, he spoke about gun rights and his feeling that some unnamed U.S. leaders were showing signs of “tyranny.” The Oath Keepers did not immediately reply to requests for comment. Byerly said his deputies checked out media reports of threats against the ranch and found no evidence. He said ranchers were not contacted for the informal investigation because his deputies did not feel welcome at the ranch. In an initial interview with Reuters, he described a “confrontational” exchange between armed ranchers and one of his deputies, who he said was barred from entering the ranch when he went to investigate an April 22 car accident involving a ranch hand. Footage from the deputy’s body cam video during his visit the day of the accident, obtained through a public records request, shows a single ranch hand, not visibly carrying weapons. The ranch hand told Reuters she was unarmed. The video shows the ranch hand greeting the deputy at the gate, being questioned about the accident, and offering contact information. Asked about the discrepancies, the sheriff acknowledged in a subsequent interview he had been mistaken in his account. ALWAYS ON GUARD On a recent day in late June, ranchers and volunteers formed a semi-circle, spreading their arms wide and corralling a few dozen fuzzy alpaca into a holding pen for shearing. May Quinty Dynamic, a transgender woman from Denver, was among the volunteers. Dynamic said she was thrilled to be surrounded by so many other transgender people. She met Logue, who, like her, also began to transition at the age of 35. “I’ve been able to talk to everybody and tell my little story over and over,” Dynamic said. After a long day, Logue made her way back to her room as the sun began to sink, sending shafts of light through thick indigo storm clouds above the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Sore from a day of wrangling alpaca, Logue collapsed onto her mattress and closed her eyes. Outside her door, the sounds of warm chatter and dinner prep filtered down the hallway from the kitchen. As she began to drift off to sleep, she rolled toward the edge of the bed. Logue’s hand fell off the side of the mattress and came to rest, instinctively, on her rifle. (Reporting by Leah MillisEditing by Donna Bryson and Rosalba O’Brien) Unicorn Ranch previously on Towleroad ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars’ Season 6 Spills Tea All Over the Pink Table Read More Supreme Court LGBTQ: This Season’s Final Report: Minor Victories, Could-Have-Been-Worse Losses, Trepidation About Future Read More 11 Must-See Miami Spots for Gay Travelers with Children Read More Happy Bastille Day? C’est Compliqué. French Ambiguity Lets You Celebrate Storming The Bastille, National Unity, Or A New York Restauarant Read More Billy Porter Pose: Found Growth Playing Pray There’s ‘a whole generation of us who haven’t really been able to process what happened.’ Read More Sexy Photos of Provincetown’s Gay Bear Week 10+ Years Ago, Inspire With Message: “Be Kinder … Make Sanctuary … Feel at Ease,” Says Artist Paul Specht Read More Trump Hitler Connections. Report that Trump told Chief of Staff that Hitler ‘did a lot of good things,’ Is One Of Too Many. Read More Emma Corrin, played Diana in ‘The Crown’, Chooses Gender Neutral Pronouns; Posts Stunning ‘intimate…new…cool’ Images in Chest Binder Read More Load More View the full article

Let’s talk about sex, baby on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. Come on, RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars season six! Let’s get traumatized! When you’re spilling this much tea while unpacking emotional baggage, things are bound to get messy. (I hope someone brought a Tide pen.) This week’s challenge tasked the queens with revealing intimate details of their lives and most devastating memories all for our viewing pleasure. But the real juicy stuff happened off the main stage, where it appeared once and for all Jan was about to snap. In fact, it feels like this whole season could end with Jan waking up from a coma, the whole season having only taken place in her mind. Truly, if you love to watch Jan squirm, this week’s episode basically feels like a supercut. It all starts with the ceremonial certification of the lipsticks. If you recall, Jan was a bit preoccupied with prognosticating how all the gals would vote last week when she made her vote. She lost the lip sync, so it seems a bit of a nonissue, but when the queens realize the vote is unanimous (or, as Kylie says, “anonymous”), you can see Jan begin to panic. While all the other queens chose to send home Yara, Jan picked A’Keria, based on wins. It’s a much bigger deal to Jan than it is to the other queens. She goes into a bit of a tailspin needing to know if they all agree to make these decisions mathematically going forward or not. (It should be noted that every season this sort of “objective” rule is attempted, it never works. There are too many intangibles, and how do you qualify wins vs. lip syncs vs. mini challenges? It starts to feel like an acting challenge inspired by Hidden Figures.) Again, these queens are unbothered. They tell Jan they’re assessing things a bit more holistically, but the ambiguity is too much for Jan to Jandle. And herein lies Jan’s central struggle. She is so fixated with giving people — the fandom, Mama Ru, the other queens — what she thinks they want. It gives everything she does that thirsty energy. That’s why she’s struggling with these votes. She’s spending too much time thinking about the “right” answer than doing the sort of soul-searching to make a personal decision. If ever there was a week to drop the act and be real, it’s this one. Continuing a hot streak of well-crafted challenges, our maxi challenge this week is dedicated to Jada Pinkett Smith’s web show, Red Table Talk. The beloved chat show is famed for its no-holds-barred, vulnerable conversations. Ru barely puts a twist on the format for Pink Table Talk, but it’s a much more compelling way to get to the heart of these queens than Ru’s podcast or Tic-Tac chat. It might have to do with the queens talking to each other, versus talking to Michelle and Ru. There’s an ease of candor throughout all of these conversations that leads to some really deep revelations. Well, maybe not an ease in every conversation … Ru lets everyone get into groups of three and choose a topic: Sex, Body or Motherhood. After the chats, this week’s runway is Clash of the Patterns. How’d everyone do? A’Keria gets real on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. Team Sex: Eureka, A’Keria and Trinity What a misstep for the other queens to let these three come together. First off, Eureka is already an established television talent, thanks to the wonderful We’re Here, so this is already up her alley. A’Keria is looking to bounce back after barely escaping elimination for two weeks. To cap it all off, we’ve got Trinity, who is having a stellar redemption season and is enjoying frontrunner status. Once they take it to the table, they’re great. A’keria shares that she used to live as a trans woman, but transitioned again to live as a man when out of drag. I hope we hear more about this later this season, because where else on television are these conversations happening? Trinity discusses what it’s like to have sex as an openly HIV-positive individual. It leans a little too much on educating, rather than her story, but she has other moments throughout the conversation that are light or more off-the-cuff. Eureka doesn’t disappoint in her role as moderator. She keeps the conversation moving briskly, opens up about her sex life and has just the right jokes to punctuate her story without distracting. Three stunning lewks on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. These three are also far and away the best dressed on the runway. A’Keria in particular once again walked a gorgeous lewk inspired by a mannequin, sewing patterns and soft measuring tape wig. Not the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing, but it’s my favorite take so far. Eureka is head-to-toe flawless in an absolutely exquisite, expertly designed gown that fits her perfectly and mixes wildly different patterns flawlessly. Just stunning. Trinity brings it, too! Her patterned eleganza has definite Black Panther vibes, and she looks note perfect. The judges have no choice but to award them top team of the week. I mean, put these three on Wow Presents+. (Or Logo. Or Paramount+. Or VH1. Or Gas Station TV. Whatever, we’ll buy it, you know we will.) However, all three queens are merely SAFE. Scarlet played the part a little too perfectly on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. Team Motherhood: Ra’Jah, Kylie and Scarlet Scarlet really digs her heels in to nab this topic, because she’s got two moms. It’s a cute story. Her mom met her partner later in life at a yoga class. They’re both named Sherry. It’s adorable. The problem is all in Scarlet’s delivery. This is not a character challenge, and Scarlet keeps dipping into character. It’s like a nervous tic. It’s not exactly like a TikTok influencer trying to show their “goofy” side, but it’s got the same energy, if that makes sense? On the runway, Scarlet wears a beautiful idea, which is a dress printed with her grandparents love letters, but it’s one of my least favorite things she’s worn this season. You can tell she was sort of enchanted by the concept, which is great, but the presentation lacks that chic edge she’s been bringing. Ru rips into her performance, giving it one of the most savage reads in the show’s herstory. She says Scarlet made her “uncomfortable.” Could there be a worse critique to get during such an authentic, personal challenge? Ra’Jah goes into the topic a little concerned, since she’s got a complicated relationship with her conservative mother. It’s clearly difficult for her, but ultimately seems cathartic. It provides a good opportunity for Kylie, playing moderator, to connect and share her own advice. It’s a powerful exchange, but when the focus turns to Kylie, she offers a pretty underwhelming story about her dog. The judges don’t buy it, and she’s up for elimination. Team Body-ody-ody on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. Team Body: Ginger, Pandora and Jan Although not her first choice of topic, Ginger throws herself into the body issues theme. Of course, she can talk about what it’s like as a bigger gal in the queer community, but she also opens up about her medical issues and is a sparkling hostess the entire chat. It’s a strong enough performance to snag her the week’s win. Pandora is fine. She discusses getting older, losing her abs. She makes just the right amount of jokes to keep it light, but without being overly hammy. She gives great runway, in maybe my favorite look she’s ever worn, inspired by Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas. And then there’s Jan. Oh, boy. As you can imag-Jan, Jan really Jans this one. She’s so eager, it’s almost like an SNL sketch about a morning show, with none of the gravitas of Red Table Talk. At one point she does (a very rehearsed) joke about “the vulnerability the judges are looking for.” It just comes off as less of a joke, and more of the all-consuming thought Jan can’t move past long enough to talk about anything else. Just because it’s true, you still shouldn’t say it. The judges rightfully read Jan for her runway, which looks like something Charli XCX would wear if she played the Misfits in another reboot of Jem and the Holograms. So, already, Jan is on edge. Then, they go backstage to untuck and Scarlet makes her move. Instantly, before anyone else could seize the narrative, Scarlet establishes that she got glowing critiques, completely omitting Ru calling her uncomfortable. Talk about alternative facts! You can see Jan recoil. She’s twitching like it’s an encore of “Womanizer.” How NO ONE says anything is both shocking and so, so fun to watch. Because Jan has the most to lose here. It feels like it’s between Scarlet and Jan, so if the three safe queens who missed hearing the judges buy into Scarlet’s story, it’s Jan who will likely go home. Jan is very direct with Ginger, but there’s no big blowup with Scarlet in front of everyone. There’s a quick fake out with this week’s lip sync assassin. At first, Bianca “Never Lip Synced” del Rio is revealed. It’s just a gag to get a few Bianca barbs in before we get the real lip sync assassin of the week, Mayhem Miller. Eh. Luckily, Ginger absolutely murders a performance of Lizzo’s “Phone.” Not a moment is wasted. Mayhem is fine, and, more importantly, plays along with Ginger for some really great exchanges. Ru loves it, and Ginger grabs the cumulative $30k pot that’s been building. She pulls out the lipstick and sends Scarlet home. For now. So where does that leave us now? Let’s run down our rankings. I’m sticking with my girl Trinity at number one. She executed her vision perfectly this week during Pink Table Talk and on the runway. She gets more likable every episode, and I’m obsessed with everything she’s wearing.Eureka is not to be underestimated. Last week’s high placement felt a little flukey to me, but she’s yet to stumble so far. There’s a great maturity in Eureka, and she’s really learned how to leverage that big personality as to not always suck up all the air in the room. I love this iteration of Eureka.Ra’Jah may have lost a little steam, but this was an important week for her to show a more vulnerable side. She may not have slayed any individual part of the week, but the willingness to let those walls down goes far with Ru.Started from the bottom, now Ginger is here. She caught a few bad weeks, but this week’s edit was determined to sell the story of Ginger’s comeback. And it did! How could you not love that lip sync? It was so, so good, and she looked amazing.Pandora is holding strong, but slipping to the middle of the pack. She delivered on the assignment this week, just barely sharing enough for credit. Her runway was really strong, but she needs a breakout performance, and soon.I do so hope this is the start of an A’Keria bounceback. These runways have not been given the love they deserve. I can certainly envision a future in which A’Keria’s revelation empowers her to be more authentically herself overall in this competition and leads to a resurgence. Well, a blogger can dream, at least.Believe it or not, I don’t intend to be cruel to Jan. But the only way through this obsession with achievement and perfection and people-pleasing is only shattered by accepting the absurdity and futility of guessing what anyone wants. Wouldn’t you love to see what Jan could do if Jan truly didn’t give a f***? If she can’t break this pattern soon, it will be her downfall this season.I’m not sure why Kylie isn’t vibing with the judges just yet. I thought her moment with Ra’Jah was really powerful, even if her own story was sort of meh. Her Steven Tyler was overlooked, and her runways have all been killer. It does feel like she may be on borrowed time unless she can really start to stand out.It was a tough week to pick someone to go home, but Scarlet was probably the right pick. I also found her Pink Table Top tone to be unnerving, and the gown was a snooze. (A lovely, touching snooze, but a snooze all the same.) I know (and she clearly knows) she has a lot more to show, and I would be interested to see her fight her way back to the competition through whatever game-within-a-game is yet to unfold.How would you rank the queens? Catch up with all our RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars recaps. View the full article

Supreme Court LGBTQ wins and losses can be tallied with end of the session last week.Trends The U.S. Supreme Court session that just ended amounted to mostly a “tread water” experience for LGBT people—with several little victories and no spectacular losses. But there are sharks in these legal waters, nipping at equal protection for LGBT people in the name of religion, and prospects for the future are unsettling. The days of the blockbuster wins for LGBT people seem over, at least for the foreseeable future. No more triumphs, like the 2015 decision to strike state bans on marriage for same-sex couples (Obergefell v. Hodges) or the 2013 decision to strike a federal law (DOMA) which banned recognition of such marriages (U.S. v. Windsor). No surprise epic, like last year’s ruling that “sex discrimination” prohibited by the federal civil rights law includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (Bostock v. Clayton). ACB is no RBG, Champion of Supreme Court LGBTQ Wins In the 2020 session, which adjourned July 2, the composition of the court curdled to the right and, more specifically, to the religious right. The court’s most pro-LGBT justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, died and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett just as the session got underway. This alone brought a sense of dread and gloom for LGBT prospects going forward. Ginsburg had voted pro-LGBT 90 percent of the time; many expected Barrett to vote just as frequently against LGBT people. Barrett had only two LGBT-related opinions to weigh in on this session. In one, Americans for Prosperity v. California, she voted with other conservatives to hold that California’s law requiring that the identities of major donors to tax-exempt organizations be reported to the state violates the First Amendment right of association for donors. In the other, Fulton v. Philadelphia, she voted with a unanimous bench to hold that Philadelphia’s interest in eradicating discrimination against LGBT people “cannot justify denying [Catholic Social Services] an exception for its religious exercise” in excluding gay couples from foster care. She, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted the same way on both cases. Bridge, Golf, 4-Square, And Supreme Court Appeals… And Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh apparently withheld their consent to grant review of several lower court decisions that LGBT people had won below. It takes four justices to agree to hear an appeal before the court will accept it for review. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wanted to hear four different appeals where LGBT people won in the lower courts. In one of those four appeals, the Alito-Thomas duo had a third vote from Justice Neil Gorsuch. But they didn’t get the critical fourth, and that left the pro-LGBT rulings below intact. Appeals Refused: Lower Court LGBTQ Wins That Stuck The appeals that were snubbed included: • Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington—in which the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a state non-discrimination law does not violate the First Amendment free exercise rights of a florist who claimed her religion required her to deny service to same-sex couples seeking flowers for their weddings. In this case, Justice Gorsuch joined Alito and Thomas, wanting to hear the appeal. • Gloucester v. Grimm—in which the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, following the Supreme Court precedent in Bostock, a Virginia school district did violate Title IX of the federal Education Amendments Act when it refused to allow a transgender male student to use the boys’ restroom and locker room. Supreme Court LGBTQ: Many-times divorced Kim Davis denies marriage license and kept trying • Texas v. California—in which the state of Texas sought to file a “bill of complaint” directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging a California law that prohibited state-funded travel to certain states, including Texas, which had policies hostile to LGBT people. • Kim Davis v. Ermond—in which the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a county clerk in Kentucky could not refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Obergefell decision. Once again, Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. (Note: Barrett was not yet on the court when this case was rejected for review.) Clear Conservative Shift Gary Buseck, senior adviser to GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), said he was heartened by Barrett’s concurrence in Fulton. Barrett wrote a brief concurring opinion, explaining why she did not go along with the request to overturn a Supreme Court precedent called Employment Division v. Smith. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch urged the court to do so, saying Smith burdens the free exercise of religion. In Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for using illegal drugs as part of a religious ceremony. The 1990 decision said a state law denying benefits to employees fired for “misconduct” (illegal drug use) was generally applicable to all persons. Supreme Court LGBTQ future is not the brightest with the arrival of Amy Coney Barrett Barrett said she was “skeptical” about the idea of “swapping Smith’s categorical anti-discrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime….” She said the Supreme Court “has been much more nuanced” in its approach and there was no reason in the Fulton conflict to overturn Smith. Justices Kavanaugh and Stephen Breyer signed onto Barrett’s concurrence. “You cannot write anyone off on the court at this point,” said ACLU legal director David Cole, in a post-session discussion. Cole noted that the Supreme Court has had a majority of Republican-appointed justices since 1972 and yet has made “substantial progress” on issues such as marriage equality. The key, he said, is that the Supreme Court “doesn’t depart very far from where country is” and, “because the country had moved to a point where there was just not a good reason to deny marriage equality in 2015,” the court ruled for marriage equality in 2015. Look Out. Outlook for Next Season University of California-Berkeley School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, speaking at a Supreme Court analysis session by the National Constitution Center on July 8, said he sees a Supreme Court “in transition,” since Barrett replaced Ginsburg. He said it is clear there won’t be any 5 to 4 decisions with liberals in the majority, and the conservative majority now means most cases will be more conservative appeals. New York University School of Law Professor Melissa Murray, speaking at the same session, predicted a continued “move toward religion as having ‘most favored nation’ status” at the Supreme Court. Two cases are already in the queue for next session: One asks whether a Catholic-run hospital can deny a hysterectomy to a female-to-male transgender patient. Another asks whether Boston, which allows LGBT Pride flags to fly on city property during pride month, can deny a Christian group to fly its flag on the same property. © 2021 Keen News Service. All rights reserved. Kim Davis pooto by By davidvmoore1976 – Supreme Court LGBTQ previously on Towleroad 11 Must-See Miami Spots for Gay Travelers with Children July 14, 2021 Read More Happy Bastille Day? C’est Compliqué. French Ambiguity Lets You Celebrate Storming The Bastille, National Unity, Or A New York Restauarant July 14, 2021 Read More Billy Porter Pose: Found Growth Playing Pray There’s ‘a whole generation of us who haven’t really been able to process what happened.’ July 14, 2021 Read More Sexy Photos of Provincetown’s Gay Bear Week 10+ Years Ago, Inspire With Message: “Be Kinder … Make Sanctuary … Feel at Ease,” Says Artist Paul Specht July 13, 2021 Read More Trump Hitler Connections. Report that Trump told Chief of Staff that Hitler ‘did a lot of good things,’ Is One Of Too Many. July 13, 2021 Read More Emma Corrin, played Diana in ‘The Crown’, Chooses Gender Neutral Pronouns; Posts Stunning ‘intimate…new…cool’ Images in Chest Binder July 13, 2021 Read More Load More View the full article

There’s no shortages of places for kiddos to dig into sand on a number Miami’s beaches. Photo courtesy of the GMCVB.Miami’s sexy, late-night party scene and chiseled, tan bodies may not seem an obvious destination for LGBTQ+ Parents, gay travelers with children. However, the city offers unique culture, gorgeous natural settings and tons of fun activities to delight visitors of all ages instead of (or between) the parties. Gay travel to Miami with kids may look different than it did when you came as a single 20-something, but that’s the beauty of it. There are so many different experiences awaiting travelers, each visit is an opportunity to uncover another side of the region. Don’t worry if all you know of Miami is Twist, Palace and Gaythering; we’ve got you covered. Beyond the beach, nature-loving kids and parents can explore parks, hit the water and even interact with the wildlife that call the Everglades home. As a cultural hub, Miami’s museums boast plenty to enrich and entertain the whole family. And if you think Miami’s haute cuisine and Cuban flavors are out of reach for the kids, think again. Click through our gallery of must-see spots for gay families visiting Miami. View the full article