Most people acknowledge that Twitter and Facebook have turned into shouting contests driven primarily by fear and anger. I gave up on both services several years ago, and feel like I haven't missed anything. I'd like to point out an example of the other end of the spectrum which demonstrates that we can have thoughtful, courteous debate on challenging issues.
Amy Howe writes for SCOTUSblog:
On Monday, October 7, the first Monday in October, the justices of the Supreme Court will return to the bench for the first oral arguments of the new term. The next day, the court will tackle a trio of cases that could prove to be some of the biggest of the term. At issue is whether federal employment discrimination laws, first passed by Congress in 1964, that bar discrimination “because of sex” protect gay, lesbian and transgender employees.
She proceeds to clearly summarize the rulings by various federal courts that have finally led to the Supreme Court taking up these cases. This one article alone is better than most of the drivel posted on social media. However, this blog also solicited and posted five opinions on these cases from credible authors with various viewpoints:
- Textualism's moment of truth
- Hiding elephants in mouse holes: The original meaning of "discrimination on the basis of sex"
- How the Title VII trilogy may test the court
- Let's talk about sex: why Title VII must cover sexual orientation and gender identity
- Title VII did not and does not extend to sexual orientation or gender identity - in 1964 or today
As I read these articles with an open mind, I was able to better understand the real issues to be considered by the Court. Understanding shaped my own informed opinion, which is different than it was before I read the articles. This is how it's supposed to work.