Jump to content

Lee Rosenthal


Johnny Sack

Recommended Posts

Just issued an interesting opinion on protected rights for transgenders and gays.  Ruling they are in a protected class. 

I doubt anyone in Congress that wrote or voted for the CRA in 1964 ever thought that. But there is a growing consensus among courts that it does. 

Does not affect me. Just interesting rulings. 

I have tremendous respect for Judge Rosenthal. She’s absolutely brilliant. 

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

She thinks I’m dumb as a rock. 

I clerked for one of her best friends in the Southern District. And my mentor at Big Law was her protege.  I’ve been around her in social situations and she knows me.  And I still get intimidated every time I’m in her court. She is Supreme Court smart and has an amazing work ethic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Did she say gays and transgenders are protected classes under the Fourteenth Amendment or that discrimination against gays and transgenders is sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act?

Well shit. I’m sitting at the bar and drinking. Have not read the opinion.  Just got an email from a colleague. So I don’t know. I’m assuming the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't know anything about this opinion, but she is as good as it gets.   It's a crime that ideologues on the right kept her off the Fifth Circuit. 

Are you kidding?  That isn’t what happened at all. She was a Bush nominee and lost her best chance of getting  to the 5th due to Obama’s 8 years when there was no way he’d nominate her.  

She largely leans to the right. 

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you kidding?  That isn’t what happened at all. She was a Bush nominee and lost her best chance of getting  to the 5th due to Obama’s 8 years when there was no way he’d nominate her.  

She largely leans to the right. 

You're wrong.   I'm not getting into it further, but she was a Bush 1 appointee, not Bush 2.   Her best chance to be elevated wasn't under Obama, but rather 8 years under W.  Yes, she leans to the right, and it's a sad statement on modern politics that W didn't put her on the 5th.  What I said is exactly what happened. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding?  That isn’t what happened at all. She was a Bush nominee and lost her best chance of getting  to the 5th due to Obama’s 8 years when there was no way he’d nominate her.  
She largely leans to the right. 


I think his point was she wasn’t far enough to the right to get one of Bush Jr.’s nominations. She was certainly more qualified than Elrod or Haynes and less of a piece of human excrement than Clement or Owen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like it was a Title VII opinion which follows the recent circuit opinions.

I would agree that the original intent of Title VII was probably not to cover transgender discrimination but it seems pretty logical that transgender discrimination is discrimination based on sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...