English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper discusses the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Corut considered that the sex discrimination ban of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Given that who reflects the Court’s majority opinion is Judge Neil Gorsuch – appointed by President Trump to office, and advocate of originalism and textualism as a method of legal interpretation, particular attention is paid to how that theory influences the reasoning of the majority’s opinion, as well as the dissenting opinions of Judges Alito and Kavanaugh.

Interpretación constitucional y derecho antidiscriminatorio. A propósito del caso Bostock y el futuro del originalismo