April 5, 2017


News and Views


"OPTIMISM" AMONG POLICE, BUT NOT SO MUCH AMONG CITIZENS WHO HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, OR HAVE SEEN HARSH TO DEADLY TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF POLICE, ESPECIALLY TO THE POOR, THE HOMELESS, THE MENTALLY ILL AND MINORITIES – SEE THE TWO ARTICLES BELOW.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ag-jeff-sessions-lays-out-priorities-optimistic-police-groups-n733186?cid=public-rss_20170315
AG Jeff Sessions Lays Out Priorities to Optimistic Police Groups
by JON SCHUPPE
MAR 15 2017, 6:17 AM ET

Related: Trump Administration Tells Remaining U.S. Attorneys to Resign
Play -- Sessions: 'Just Say No' Drug Prevention Campaign Will Combat Crime 1:36
Related: AG Sessions Says DOJ to 'Pull Back' on Police Department Civil Rights Suits
Related: Trump Orders Crackdown on Drug Trafficking and Anti-Cop Violence
Image: Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a news conference in Washington
Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington on March 2, 2017. Yuri Gripas / Reuters


In five weeks as attorney general, Jeff Sessions has taken fire for his testimony about past meetings with Russia's ambassador and been criticized for the abrupt removal of dozens of politically appointed U.S. attorneys around the country.

But Sessions is getting a much warmer welcome among the nation's law enforcement community, which has largely embraced his plan to prosecute more drug and gun cases, crack down on immigration offenses and ease up on suing local police departments accused of violating minorities' civil rights.

Sessions will further explain his plans to realign the Justice Department's priorities on Wednesday, when he addresses a gathering of federal, state and local law enforcement officers in Richmond, Virginia. He can expect an enthusiastic response.

"Happily for us, on vast majority of issues, we're on the same page," said James Pasco, a senior adviser at the Fraternal Order of Police.

The Justice Department wouldn't comment on what Sessions will say in Richmond. But a spokesman said his remarks will expand on a number of his recent actions, including a memo ordering a crackdown on violent crime and a speech that warned that a recent uptick in crime was "the beginning of a trend" that requires a "return to the ideas" that cut lawbreaking to historic lows since the 1990s.

In that Feb. 28 speech to state attorneys general, Sessions blamed Mexican drug cartels for a record spike in heroin overdoses and suggested that he would reverse Obama administration policies that sought to reduce the prosecutions of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders on charges that carried mandatory minimum prison sentences.

Sessions said in the speech that from 2010 to 2015, the number of gun and drug prosecutions had dropped. "This trend will end," he said.

“Happily for us, on vast majority of issues, we’re on the same page.”

Sessions, a Republican former U.S. senator and federal prosecutor from Alabama, also signaled a new approach toward police departments accused of discriminatory policing. He said that rather than "spending scarce federal resources to sue them in court," federal money would be better used going after criminals.

Michael Ramos, president of the National District Attorneys Association, said it was refreshing to hear Sessions promise to "get back to tough-on-crime."

The Obama administration, Ramos said, went too far in seeking ways to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and get people out of prison. That lenience, he said, could be driving crime rates.

"We've gotten to a point where the pendulum is starting to swing back," Ramos said.

Lawrence Leiser, vice president for policy at the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, said his organization opposed easing up on mandatory minimum sentencing and welcomed a return to earlier approaches.

He said he viewed Sessions' take on law enforcement as "inspiring."

"Assistant U.S. attorneys are encouraged by the attorney general's approach to combating drug trafficking and violent crime by using all of the lawful tools that are currently available to prosecutors," Leiser said.

That said, law enforcement officials cautioned that the Trump administration is only a couple months old, and Sessions had yet to articulate how the new priorities would be put in place.

“I argued for those things back then. But I saw that those massive arrest strategies don’t work. There’s tremendous collateral damage.”

Ronal Serpas, a former police superintendent in New Orleans and chairman of the group Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration, said he embraced Sessions' focus on violent crime. But his group has also warned the administration against using jail and prison as the tools to attack crime more broadly.

Many nonviolent, first time offenders, particularly those suffering from mental illness or drug addiction, would be better served by alternatives, the group said in a set of recommendations for the new administration.

The group also urged Sessions to rethink his opposition to sentencing reform.

And it warned against rumored cuts to the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

"I'd like to see the attorney general focus narrowly on the issue of violent gun and drug crime and not get distracted by the big sweeping arrests we had in the 1990s," Serpas said. "I argued for those things back then. But I saw that those massive arrest strategies don't work. There's tremendous collateral damage."

Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said he was encouraged by the mere fact that Sessions was speaking directly to local law enforcement agencies so early in his tenure.

That's important to many police officials who saw the Obama administration as being too critical of police during a time of eroding trust between cops and the public, he said. Much of those problems have been driven by increased scrutiny of shootings by police and an uptick in attacks on officers.

“We're just trying to get off on the right foot and help influence things in a direction where the big cities around this country are providing the best service we can," Manger said.


TRUMP’S PUTTING A BUNCH OF GREEDY HARD-HEARTED PRIVILEGED INDIVIDUALS INTO EVERY POST ON HIS STAFF CAN ONLY INSURE THAT A HUMAN DISASTER WILL OCCUR (OR DOZENS OF THEM, MORE LIKELY). IT IS STRIKING THAT POLICE UNIONS, WHICH ARE USUALLY HIGHLY CONSERVATIVE, SAID IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THAT THE FEDERAL PLAN OF CONSENT DECREES SEEM TO BE WORKING. TO ME, IT’S OBVIOUS THAT THE PERSONAL INPUT OF INDIVIDUALS IN A MEETING FROM THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF A GROUP IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. IT BRINGS OUT THE BEST IN PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE WORST. WE ALL LIKE TO GET A CHANCE TO SAY OUR PIECE ON THE SUBJECT, AFTER ALL.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cities-don-t-want-justice-department-back-police-reforms-n742661
Cities Don’t Want Justice Department to Back Off Police Reforms
by JON SCHUPPE and SAFIA SAMEE ALI
APR 5 2017, 5:15 AM ET

Image: Demonstrators chant as they protest in Chicago

Demonstrators chant as they protest in Chicago on Aug. 7. Joshua Lott / Getty Images
Related: Justice Dept. Seeks Pause on Agreement With Baltimore Police
Image: Shootings In Chicago Add To 'Murder Capital' Label -- Police investigate the shooting death of 14-year-old Tommy McNeal on Sept. 20, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. McNeal was one of at least 3 killed and about 30 wounded by gunfire in the city in the past 24 hours. Scott Olson / Getty Images, file
Related: AG Jeff Sessions Lays Out Priorities to Optimistic Police Groups
Play FROM MARCH 17: Jeff Sessions Invokes Nancy Reagan to Fight Opioid Epidemic Facebook Twitter Embed
FROM MARCH 17: Jeff Sessions Invokes Nancy Reagan to Fight Opioid Epidemic 1:29

The Justice Department is having second thoughts about forcing Baltimore to reform its police force, with new Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying he isn't sure the federal government should be overseeing local cops.

That skepticism may also extend to Chicago, which is negotiating a legal settlement with the DOJ over systemic abuses by police.

The problem with this new approach, outlined in a recent staff memo and court filing, is that many of the people who live in these cities want the feds keeping an eye on cops.

Baltimore and Chicago both suffer from a long, painful legacy of distrust between the public and police. Both reached tipping points in 2015: first in Baltimore, which erupted in riots following a man's death in police custody, then in Chicago, when the city released a video showing an officer shooting a 17-year-old boy to death.

In both cases, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division investigated, and found evidence of a "pattern and practice" of unconstitutional police tactics, including excessive use of force that fell disproportionately on the backs of minorities. This was under President Obama, who used the Civil Rights Division to force two-dozen troubled police forces into court-monitored reforms.

In the administration's waning days, the division announced an agreement with Baltimore, and began talks with Chicago on a similar deal.

Many worry that those efforts may now come undone.

"History dictates the fact that (the police) need to be watched," said Pemon Rami, a filmmaker and activist on Chicago's South Side. "Will the police police themselves? They never have."

A similar unease runs through Baltimore, where Police Commissioner Kevin Davis tried to reassure the public that the city remained committed to a proposed agreement to overhaul the department. The deal still has to be approved by a judge.

"I want to say to the community in particular that the police department is absolutely dedicated to the consent decree process," Davis said in a Tuesday press conference. "There's no backroom deals. There's no sleight-of-hand."

The worries stem from the Justice Department's Monday request for a federal judge to give the government more time to study the Baltimore agreement. Attached to that filing was a memo in which Sessions ordered his top prosecutors to review all of the agency's activities ─ including "existing or contemplated consent decrees" ─ to make sure they aligned with Trump administration priorities.

Sessions has spoken in the past of his suspicion of consent decrees and his concern that a backlash against police had undermined efforts to stem crime. Among the principals [sic] he outlined in his memo were leaving local authorities to run police departments.

"It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies," Sessions wrote.

That threw into question not only the Baltimore agreement, but also the future of the Chicago reforms.

“Why would I trust a city that covered up the murder of a boy they shot 16 times?”

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said she opposed a delay. "Any interruption in moving forward may have the effect of eroding the trust that we are working hard to establish," she said.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson were more circumspect, saying in a joint statement that they were committed to reforms already underway.

Police unions in both cities praised the Justice Department's moves, saying it reflected confidence in police and their ability to respond to existing reform efforts.

Thomas Manger, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, cautioned against reading too much into the latest court filings.

"In discussions I've had with (Sessions), he has emphasized his commitment to reform and holding police departments accountable," Manger said. "So if anybody assumes he's pulling back on these agreements ... and making it less difficult for police agencies, that remains to be seen."

But William Yeomans, a former Civil Rights Division official, said the Civil Rights Division was at a crossroad. Reform proposals helped restore calm after unrest in Baltimore and Chicago, he said.

"That peace may turn out to be temporary if the reform effort falls apart," Yeomans said.

In Chicago neighborhoods where police distrust runs high, residents said they needed the Justice Department's oversight.

"I don't trust the city or the mayor to make any changes," said Aria Taylor, who lives on the South Side. "He needs someone bigger looking down on what he's doing."

Ja'Mal Green, a Black Lives Matter activist, pointed out that the city resisted releasing the video of an officer shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald for a year until a judge forced its hand.

"Why would I trust a city that covered up the murder of a boy they shot 16 times?" Green said.



I WAS UNCERTAIN ON THE MEANING OF CONSENT DECREE, THOUGH I COULD MAKE A PARTIALLY CORRECT GUESS, SO I GOOGLED IT AS USUAL. GOOGLE IS A TREASURE TROVE OF INFORMATION THAT IS TO THE POINT AND COVERS AN AMAZINGLY WIDE RANGE OF SUBJECTS. READ ALL YOU WANT TO OF THIS, THOUGH WITHIN THE FIRST TWO OR THREE PARAGRAPHS YOU WILL FIND ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SEE HOW THEY WORK.

AFTER READING THIS, I REALLY DON’T SEE WHAT SESSIONS HAS AGAINST THIS CIVIL AGREEMENT PROCESS, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS ADMINISTRATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND HE, BEING A SOUTHERNER, WANTS STATES RIGHTS TO BE THE RULING PRINCIPLE IN ALL OR NEARLY ALL ISSUES. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES LIKE THE SHOOTING OF A 17 YEAR OLD (BLACK) BOY 16 TIMES DO OCCUR IN LARGE NUMBERS, IT IS USUALLY NOT THE WORK OF “ONE BAD APPLE” BUT AN OVERALL BAD ATTITUDE. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND THESE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS THAT ARE FULL OF RACIAL HUMOR, OR RATHER RACIAL ABUSE, BEING PASSED AROUND FROM OFFICER TO OFFICER, AND THE WHOLE CHAIN OF COMMAND HAS SOMETIMES BEEN INVOLVED IN IT. WHAT THEY TEND TO DO IS FIRE – OR “SUSPEND WITH PAY,” TWO OR THREE AND THEN SWEEP THE WHOLE MATTER UNDER THE RUG UNTIL IT HITS THE NEWS AGAIN. WHAT OBAMA DID WAS TO PULL UP THE RUG AND VACUUM THE WHOLE MESS OUT, THEN PLACE THEM UNDER A WATCHFUL EYE FOR THE FUTURE. NATURALLY, THEY DON’T LIKE THAT AT ALL.

ALSO, WHEN THESE EVENTS OCCUR IN AN AREA KNOWN TO BE FULL OF RACISM IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE, I’M LIKE THE NEWS COMMENTATOR WHO GOT INTO TROUBLE TEN OR SO YEARS AGO FOR MAKING A MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT AND JUSTIFYING IT BY SAYING, “IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT’S A DUCK!!” THE SAME SITUATION OFTEN EXISTS IN HIGHLY REGIMENTED AND AUTHORITARIAN LARGELY MALE SITUATIONS LIKE CITY POLICE FORCES AND THE MILITARY (THE TORTURE CASES IN IRAQ, FOR INSTANCE.) THE COMMON PHRASE FOR IT IS “THE OLD BOY’S NETWORK,” IN WHICH PRIVILEGED AND USUALLY WHITE OLDER MEN DO MISDEEDS AS A MATTER OF COURSE AND THEN PROTECT EACH OTHER WHEN IT COMES TO LIGHT. IN POLICE FORCES IT IS CALLED “THE BLUE WALL OF SILENCE.” YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GUESS THIS, BUT I REALLY VISCERALLY HATE THAT KIND OF THING. I TRY TO LOVE ALL PEOPLE, BUT IN ALL HONESTY, I JUST CAN’T.

IT IS DISCOURAGING TO ME, BUT CLEAR, THAT IF PEOPLE WHO ARE WHAT IN THE MAFIA WOULD BE CALLED “ENFORCERS,” ARE GIVEN A TOTALLY UNSUPERVISED FREE REIN, THE CHANCE OF TRAGEDY AFTER TRAGEDY UNFOLDING IS ALL TOO LIKELY. THE TRULY AVERAGE HUMAN BEING THESE DAYS – OR PROBABLY EVER -- CAN’T BE TRUSTED TOTALLY. AS PRESIDENT REAGAN SO FAMOUSLY SAID, “TRUST, BUT VERIFY!!” THAT IS MY ANSWER TO AG SESSIONS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_decree
Consent decree
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refers to such a type of settlement in the United States.[1][2] The plaintiff and the defendant ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties.[3][4][5][6] It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, settlement agreements, or consent judgment.[7][8] Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation.[9][10][11]

Legal process[edit]

The process of introducing a consent decree begins with negotiation.[12] One of the three happens: a lawsuit is filed and the parties concerned reach an agreement prior to adjudication of the contested issues; a lawsuit is filed and actively contested, and the parties reach an agreement after the court has ruled on some issues; or the parties settle their dispute prior to the filing of a lawsuit and they simultaneously file a lawsuit and request that the court agree to the entry of judgment.[13][14][15] The court is meant to turn this agreement into a judicial decree.[16][17][18][19] In many cases, the request for entry of a consent decree prompts judges to sign the documents presented then and there.[20][21] In some cases, however, such as criminal cases, the judge must additionally make some sort of assessments before the court’s entry of the agreement as a consent decree.[22]

The usual consent decree is not self-executing.[23] A consent decree is implemented when the parties transform their agreements from paper to reality.[24][25][26] In this the judge who signed the decree may have no involvement or may monitor the implementation.[27][28] The judge can only step in to assist in enforcement if a party complains to the court that an opponent has failed to perform as agreed.[29] In this case, the offending party would be committed for contempt.[30]

. . . .

History and evolution[edit]

Because judicial decrees are part of government civil enforcement in settlements that two parties typically agree to before litigation is filed, they act as a hybrid between a judicial order and a settlement without a party conceding criminal responsibility.[42][43]

Frederick Polluck and Frederic Maitland describe how courts during the twelfth century of Medieval Europe used "fines" as a form of court orders to settle land disputes among litigants with the punitive power and legitimacy of courts through the use of consent decree.[44][45] In the United States, nineteenth and twentieth century legal treatises[46][47][48] show that consent decrees and the role of the court in the parties' settlement was ambiguous. The 1947 Corpus Juris Secundum declares that although consent decrees are "not the judgment of the court," they do have the "force and effect of a judgment."[49][50]



HERE IS YET ANOTHER OLD BOY’S NETWORK, I FEEL SURE. MEN JUST CAN’T ACCEPT WOMEN ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN A COMPETITIVE SITUATION. REASON NUMBER 15 WHY I CAN’T IMAGINE MARRYING AGAIN.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-salaries-compensation-survey-reveals-big-race-gender-pay-gap/
Doctor salary survey reveals big pay gap for some
By MARY BROPHY MARCUS CBS NEWS
April 5, 2017, 6:05 AM

Photograph -- African-American and female physicians make significantly less money than their white, male colleagues, a new survey shows. ANDRIY SOLOVYOV

Being a doctor pays well, but there are still major discrepancies when it comes to paychecks within the medical profession, a new physician survey shows. For the first time, the annual report looked at race as well as gender and other factors, revealing some significant disparities in pay.

Medscape’s 2017 Physicians Compensation Report asked 19,200 physicians across 26 areas of medicine questions about annual compensation, race, gender, geography and job satisfaction.

What doctors earn: Highest and lowest paid specialties

Physicians’ annual salaries averaged $294,000, with specialists earning about $100,000 more than primary care doctors. Overall, average pay has risen by $88,000 over the seven years Medscape has been conducting this survey — an increase attributed to intense competition for doctors among hospitals and health care systems.

The three highest-paying specialties were orthopedics (average annual compensation: $489,000), plastic surgery ($440,000) and cardiology ($410,000). They earned well over twice as much as the average pediatrician ($202,000) and family physician ($209,000), the two lowest-paying categories.

A deeper dive into the data shows male doctors take home bigger paychecks in both primary care and specialty areas such as orthopedics and surgery. Male primary care physicians made 15 percent more than women in 2016, while male specialists earned 31 percent more than their female colleagues.

Part of the reason may be that women are more likely to choose lower-paying specialties, said the report’s editor Leslie Kane, senior director of Medscape Business of Medicine.

“One of the things we look at is why there is this overall disparity. We look at what specialties women are going into and they go into less well-paying areas. Fifty-three percent of pediatricians are women, one of lowest paid specialties. Thirty-nine percent of family physicians are women, also a lower-paying area,” Kane told CBS News.

When it comes to the more highly paid medical specialties, only 9 percent of women are orthopedists and only 20 percent of general surgeons are female, said Kane.

Salary reveal shows shocking gender pay gap
Play VIDEO
Salary reveal shows shocking gender pay gap

The annual compensation survey delved into race for the first time, said Kane, who has edited the report for seven years. The results showed that African-American physicians earn 15 percent less than whites — $262,000 compared to $303,000. The survey notes that a higher percent of African-American doctors are in primary care rather than specialties.

African-American doctors are also less likely to say they feel fairly compensated, with only half agreeing that they’re earning what they should.

“Fifty-percent of African-American physicians don’t feel fairly compensated,” said Kane.

Racial and gender discrimination may certainly be a factor, Kane said, but there are other factors as well. For example, if a doctor treats more Medicaid patients, their reimbursement is usually lower, since employer-insured patients tend to pay better. How many hours a doctor works and whether they’re in private practice or a clinic can also explain some inequities in pay.

“Tons of factors play into how much a physician makes,” she said.

The survey found that the gender pay gap is smaller among younger doctors. Male doctors ages 55 to 69 make 27 percent more than women, but the divide shrinks to 18 percent in physicians under the age of 34.

While some might expect upscale urban and suburban areas — think Beverly Hills or Manhattan’s Upper East Side — to be home to the most well-paid physicians, the report actually showed higher salaries in rural states. Doctors in North Dakota are the highest paid in the U.S. followed by Alaska, South Dakota and Nebraska. (Washington D.C. is lowest, while New York hovers toward the bottom of the list.) Chalk that up to supply and demand: plenty of doctors cluster in big cities, while rural areas need to offer more money to attract staff.

Patients may be glad to know that regardless of pay, most doctors like what they do: eight out of 10 physicians said they’d still choose medicine if they had the chance to pick a career all over again.



THERE ARE STILL PLENTY OF DISCRIMINATORY SITUATIONS, BUT THEY ARE BEING CHALLENGED AND BROUGHT TO LIGHT AS THIS PAY SCALE MATTER BELOW IS NOW. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU CAN MAKE A RULING, BUT GETTING IT INTO PRACTICE HAS TO BE DONE ONE LAWSUIT AT A TIME. LAWYERS BEING WHO THEY ARE WILL PICK A LAW APART PIECE BY PIECE UNTIL EVERY CONCEIVABLE ISSUE IS ADJUDGED IN THE WAY THAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE FAIR, OR MAYBE JUST “TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.” I DO HOPE THAT IN THIS CASE THE DISCRIMINATION IN PAY WILL BE ALMOST ELIMINATED. THE PLAINTIFF WILL, HOPEFULLY, FINALLY WIN, AND THEN BUSINESSES ALL OVER CAN BE MADE TO TOE THE LINE, AT LEAST FOR A FEW YEARS, THEN THEY WILL PROPOSE A NEWS ISSUE TO FIGHT.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civil-rights-act-covers-lgbt-workplace-discrimination-federal-appeals-court-rules/
Civil Rights Act covers LGBT workplace discrimination, federal appeals court rules
AP April 4, 2017, 9:12 PM

Play VIDEO -- Transgender policy to become a state-by-state issue
Play VIDEO -- Trump and immigration, gay rights

CHICAGO -- A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion.

The decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite, saying employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

It also comes as President Trump’s administration has begun setting its own policies on LGBT rights. Late in January, the White House declared Mr. Trump would enforce an Obama administration order barring companies that do federal work from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. But in February, it revoked guidance on transgender students’ use of public school bathrooms, deferring to states.

“This decision is game changer for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” said Greg Nevins, of Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBT issues.

The Hively case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didn’t hire her full time because she is a lesbian.

The entire court reheard oral arguments in November and directed the toughest questions at a lawyer for the college who argued only Congress could extend the protections. The aggressive questions suggested the court might be willing to expand the 53-year-old landmark law.

Judge Richard Posner asked the attorney for the community college, John Maley: “Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” When Maley said he couldn’t think of anyone who would be harmed, Posner shot back, “So, what’s the big deal?” Posner also said it was wrong to say a decades-old statute is “frozen” on the day it passed and that courts can never broaden its scope.

Eight out of the 11 judges who reheard the case, including Posner, were appointed by Republican presidents.

The ruling comes as hopes have dimmed among some gay rights activists that the question will be resolved in their favor following election victories in November by Republicans.

The issue could still land before the Supreme Court at some point. A GOP-majority House and Senate make it unlikely the Congress will amend the statute.

The focus of discussion at the November session in Chicago was the meaning of the word ‘sex’ in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the provision that bans workplace bias based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Multiple court rulings back Maley’s contention that Congress meant for the word to refer only to whether a worker was male or female. Given that, he said it would be wrong to stretch the meaning of ‘sex’ in the statute to also include sexual orientation. He conceded the law is imprecise, but added: “That makes it an issue for Congress.”