Gorsuch applies Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to Title VII, Civil Rights Act 1964

[excalibur]

Exactly, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction, may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

Yet the courts, as the anti-federalists had warned they would do, have taken it unto themselves to allow and to enforce statutes based on the 14th Amendment against private property, private businesses, etc. The courts basically constructed quotas and affirmative action, both wholly unconstitutional acts.

The federal courts are usurpers.

 

[johnwk]

Yet the courts, as the anti-federalists had warned they would do, have taken it unto themselves to allow and to enforce statutes based on the 14th Amendment against private property, private businesses, etc. The courts basically constructed quotas and affirmative action, both wholly unconstitutional acts.

The federal courts are usurpers.

I agree with you and why I previously wrote:


"Gorsuch’s opinion is based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, i,e, that part which makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The first question which comes to my mind is, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Do we not need to establish Congress' grant of authority to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”?


Hopefully a supporter of the majority opinion will point to the delegation of authority allowing Congress to make the above "unlawful".

JWK

 

[Norman]

So... who was surprised that conservative is an utter failure? It has been failing for the past 100 years, no one should have been surprised.

The only thing that is surprising is that people still stick with the nonsense instead of something that has the ability to conserve.

See the thread:

Conservatism Is Dead

"Cause of death: Not conserving anything." Here is a brilliant speech on why conservatism is dead, and why conservatives failed conserving anything. The speaker is an Amazon best seller, the author of classics such as "Cuckservative" as well as "Why SJWs Always Lie". Conservatives need to...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[johnwk]

So... who was surprised that conservative is an utter failure? It has been failing for the past 100 years, no one should have been surprised.

I'm not sure how you post applies to the legal aspects of the opinion. Aside from that, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?” These are the words in Title VII which I presume Gorsuch used to base his opinion on.

JWK

 

[excalibur]

Seems Constitutional to me......Equal protection under the law
The only ones who see otherwise are the “God hates fags” crowd

Equal protection meant in a judicial setting. And had nothing to do with private businesses and who they hire or fire. Now it has been co-opted to mean anything a majority in black robes says it means.

Exactly, under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction, may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

Wow, I just saw this on the Wikipedia page about the 13th Amendment. How long has that been up and how long will it stay there, who knows.

The Thirteenth Amendment applies to the actions of private citizens, while the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments apply only to state actors.​

Wikiwand - Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36...

www.wikiwand.com