Alito described today’s decision as “legislation.” He wrote that the document SCOTUS released “is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.” MORE
From the Federalist:
SCOTUS Upends Civil Rights Act Ruling On Sex Discrimination.
The United States Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the definition of sex in a federal civil rights law expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, ensuring the protection of gay, lesbian, and transgender people from being reprimanded or fired at work. This controversial decision comes after multiple failed legislation attempts in Congress over the last 15 years to rewrite the definition of the word “sex” into law.
The ruling was 6-3 with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Roberts, both appointed by Republican presidents, voting with the majority while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented on the grounds that the definition of sex is not the Court’s decision.
In the majority opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch, the Court cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title VII as both essential and applicable to the Court’s opinion on the matter.
“The answer is clear,” wrote Justice Gorsuch. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
In the dissent, however, Justice Alito pointed out that the definition of sex is not one that can be modified through the Court’s interpretation and has repeatedly failed to pass through the legislative branch.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: ‘race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.’ 42 U. S. C. 2000e–2(a)(1). Neither ‘sexual orientation’ nor ‘gender identity’ appears on that list,” Justice Alito wrote. “For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add ‘sexual orientation’ to the list, and in recent years, bills have included ‘gender identity’ as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.”
Although many LGBTQ advocates praised the decision and the surprising support from Justices Gorsuch and Roberts, conservatives condemned the decision on the grounds that it was not the Supreme Court’s decision to “redefine the meanings of words,” and that the court has usurped lawmakers’ authority by doing so. More at the link above.
It would now appear that six of the nine Judges have not read the Constitution or do not understand simple, plain English!
I put Karl Denninger’s take on it in the Bullpen. Repeated here.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=239516
Short and to the point. They have no Constitutional authority to insert words into Congressional statutes. They’re wrong.
There were people warning us about Gorsuch when he was named.
Have to be careful nominating ‘friends of Bush’. Even the D’s loved him in 2006.
“As Justice Alito warns, today’s decision, unless fixed by Congress, could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom and free speech, weaken personal privacy, and cause chaos in schools.
Judicial Watch last year submitted an amicus curiae (friend of court) brief to the court on this issue, detailing how Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to amend the law:
Where 71 bills over the course of 45 years attempted to include sexual orientation or gender identity in Title VII’s definition of sex, it is singularly unpersuasive, after all those bills have failed, to argue that these categories were “in there all along.” Any such statute should be passed by Congress, not ordered by the court.”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/sex-discrimination/
The 1964 Civil Rights Act created second, separate Constitution rights based on racial discrimination by the abridgment of Americans’ rights to have freedom of association. We couldn’t discriminate based on race. Now this has evolved to to create another separate class of protected of Americans based on sexual preference. We can’t discriminate based on sexual preferences. The only thing that will cure this idiocy is the re-election of President Trump, who will nominate Supreme Court Justices who can adhere to the United States Constitution. This is what’s at stake.
Won’t be long until they release a Supreme Court Manifesto outlining the Rules of Business Ownership: who you can hire, when you can hire, what they can do, what you must pay them in salary and benefits and how much profit you can make and keep! Rule by Tyranny of the courts and you all thought despots were bad!
Meanwhile upon the completion of the vote the decrepit hag RBG emits another sinister cackle.
How about Furries? When somebody starts walking around work with a foxtail tied to their butt plug it should be their constitutional right and they have job protection. And so on and so forth through each chapter of the textbook of sex oriented insanity. Im getting tired of this shit.
Oh look, once again, perverts win the day, thanks to two “conservative” justices. If you have a daughter who’d rather not share public rest rooms with men, or a college dorm room with a man, or a track/playing field/court with male athletes literally twice their size, then tell them that “fairness” for faggots means they, as actual women, get screwed.
Next the Supreme s will rule that the legislative Branch is no longer a separate but equal participant in government and must be disbanded. They will then rule that the Executive Branch is just another subservient unit of the judiciary and that it exists only to carry out their mandates, policies and practices! Power to the people be damned!
For the umpteenth time, THANK YOU JOHN ROBERTS!`1
You can not win if you know not your enemy!
Check out the people in CHAZ park on this morning’s KIRO7 TV video:
https://www.kiro7.com/video/?id=4922939
You have to wonder how many of them you’re now not legally entitled to discriminate against.
Maybe disbanding all police everywhere and duking it out would be better than an Article V. Convention Of The States. It would “reduce the excess population” of stupid people.
It is no longer true that the Supreme Court justices consider themselves simply to be the upholders of, and to ensure that, the constitution is being applied in a true and faithful manner as per all its mighty but simplistic glory! Now they legislate, misinterpret and make a mockery of their role in the governance of this nation!
I didn’t like either of Trump’s picks, you need Constitutional Conservatives to serve, not weak-kneed pansy’s.
I’m so sick of everyone and their extra special rights. They’re so special, the ones that already exist on the books aren’t good enough for them.
I think we can all agree that once the Justices rule outside the confines of the constitution that they are no longer Justices. The question is how do we enforce them leaving the court
and no longer being able to make official decisions?
Me too, Miss Kitty.
Maybe Trump should ask Thomas and Alito who would be good for the next pick. Because clearly, whoever advised him should be hit with a bag of dicks.
A prentend law for pretend people.
Make your own it. It will be just as real.
If it’s in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it’s in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Write you congressional representatives to get this section if the act repealed.
101
“It is no longer true that the Supreme Court justices consider themselves simply to be the upholders of, and to ensure that, the constitution is being applied in a true and faithful manner as per all its mighty but simplistic glory! Now they legislate, misinterpret and make a mockery of their role in the governance of this nation!”
HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE FOR AT LEAST 85 YEARS; maybe 150 years.
Case in point. In 62 JFK1cnominated a non compus menus former star footballer to the court. He was nominated to vote as Kennedy Clan ordered; and they would write the opinions for his signature. My folks ;aunts + uncles said the 30 years earlier “Whizzer” White was a sharp kid. He just got his head banged too many times. If you remember the ’92 VP debate; Wizzer was just a wee bit less aware than John Stockdale!
Wizzer was put on the court for 1 reason and 1 reason only TO DO WAHT THE KENNEDY CLAN TOLD HIM! We all new (I was a soph and President of YD’s at time) he would vote as told. Wizzer in ’62 laked thinking
ability!
i may have missed one but I think Wizzer did what we expected always vote liberal; IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION!
So fags can act as faggy as they (s)wish, and an employer can’t do a thing about it, even if it costs customers?
This country’s going to hell in a hurry.
This country is fucking over, all these supposed “strict constitutional” judges Trump is appointing, all they are are more fucking swamp shit. 6-3 ??? in favor of sexual deviant’s ??? Just pack it up it’s fucking over.
I can see this one used to attempt to destroy churches. Since homosexuality is a sin and not allowed, keeping it out of the church will now be punishable by lawsuits and defense bills sufficient to bankrupt any. This is the ultimate purpose. They want to destroy the religious nature of this country and the first amendment is not considered protection any more.
Praise God. One step closer to the return of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that it would be the same as in Noah’s day (marriage bed defiled by homosexuality, bestiality etc) and in Lot’s day (again open and prevalent homosexuality) when He returns.
So, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the deviant (for ex. LGBTQ etc.) lifestyle preferences and behavior of employees can’t be the standard by which they are fired, even if their lifestyle prefernces and behavior, injures or kills other employees. Great – more unconstitutional law mete out by rogue “justices”, Roberts and Gorsuch. Surprised leftist sympathizer Kavanagh didnt join in with this travesty.
But if we don’t “give” them
the legislaturethe executiveall at the same timethe totally apolitical judiciary, how are they gonna’ “fix” things. “Fix”, yeah. That’s the ticket.Hm? What? Oh! They need all all at the same time. Well good thing there’s an election coming up. Finally.
@Here come da Judge June 15, 2020 at 4:11 pm
> It would now appear that six of the nine Judges have not read the Constitution or do not understand simple, plain English!
What part of “Subject to change without notice”, do you not understand? Subject?
@TheMule June 15, 2020 at 4:38 pm
> tell them that “fairness” for faggots means they, as actual women, get screwed
Were it ever, had it ever been, about “fairness”, loyal an heroes wouldn’t need to put their
boot on the neckthumb on the scale.@MJA June 15, 2020 at 4:59 pm
> clearly, whoever advised him should be hit with a bag of dicks
I thought those people were already his most trusted advisers.