What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
That is your OPINION.


The DOCUMENTATION I provided in the OP are historical facts, and they refute Justices Gorsuch's Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to the meaning of "sex' as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, and contemporary news accounts of the Act, confirms Senator Howard added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace.

But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex. Of course, attempts have been made over the years starting in the 1920s to add an amendment to the United States Constitution granting such power to Congress, e.g.,

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”


But such attempts have repeatedly failed.

So, where does Congress get the authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people refuse to grant such power to Congress?


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

Cherry picking quotes to support your reactionary position are OPINIONS NOT FACTS.

Get back to me when you know the difference.

tenor.gif


So, you can't refute historical facts can you? Instead, you obfuscate and deflect.

JWK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


And? Nothing in what you posted prohibits citizens to discriminate in their contracts and associations with other citizens.

What is your point?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,148
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


You are confused Moon Bat.

The 1964 Civil rights Act made it a civil crime for me to discriminate against Negroes. Me as an individual, not a government.

The government deprived me of Liberty when they told me that I couldn't discriminate against whoever I wanted to.

If I don't want to sell you my house because I think you are a worthless Negro then I should not have to be forced to do it by the oppressive government.

If I don't want to do business with queers or these despicable transsexuals then I should have the Liberty to do so.

Liberals don't understand the concept of Liberty, do they?
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
1,240
Points
210
That is your OPINION.


The DOCUMENTATION I provided in the OP are historical facts, and they refute Justices Gorsuch's Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to the meaning of "sex' as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, and contemporary news accounts of the Act, confirms Senator Howard added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace.

But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex. Of course, attempts have been made over the years starting in the 1920s to add an amendment to the United States Constitution granting such power to Congress, e.g.,

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”


But such attempts have repeatedly failed.

So, where does Congress get the authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people refuse to grant such power to Congress?


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

Cherry picking quotes to support your reactionary position are OPINIONS NOT FACTS.

Get back to me when you know the difference.

tenor.gif


So, you can't refute historical facts can you? Instead, you obfuscate and deflect.

JWK

You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

I accept your concession.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
6,856
Reaction score
7,963
Points
1,918
Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Bingo. But they'll just play the victim.

The judges understand the gravity of their positions and know they'll be judged by history.
What history will they be judged by? America is not utopia. African American males could have been uplifted if really tried. But that would have put feminism a bit on the back burner let alone the gay movement. Anyway when the Dictator does show up he will go back to the traditional families as that is the cheapest way to raise a family and it keeps the communities in better ways. And a lot of people will suffer for it or worse. And it didn't have to be this way.
Roberts did not want to be known as the man who killed healthcare for tens of millions

He does not want to be known for punitive actions against immigrants.

He did not want to be known for destroying the right to work or marry for gays.

It is his legacy. Conservatives can push him, but only so far.
Roberts is a swamp creature who flew many times on the Epstein hooker (including underage) express..he's compromised and doing the the swamps bidding. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,581
Reaction score
48,353
Points
2,190
Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Bingo. But they'll just play the victim.

The judges understand the gravity of their positions and know they'll be judged by history.
What history will they be judged by? America is not utopia. African American males could have been uplifted if really tried. But that would have put feminism a bit on the back burner let alone the gay movement. Anyway when the Dictator does show up he will go back to the traditional families as that is the cheapest way to raise a family and it keeps the communities in better ways. And a lot of people will suffer for it or worse. And it didn't have to be this way.
Roberts did not want to be known as the man who killed healthcare for tens of millions

He does not want to be known for punitive actions against immigrants.

He did not want to be known for destroying the right to work or marry for gays.

It is his legacy. Conservatives can push him, but only so far.
Roberts is a swamp creature who flew many times on the Epstein hooker (including underage) express..he's compromised and doing the the swamps bidding. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Conservatives celebrated when they elevated a young, poorly qualified judge to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

We will have our man running things for decades

Live with it
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,581
Reaction score
48,353
Points
2,190
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


You are confused Moon Bat.

The 1964 Civil rights Act made it a civil crime for me to discriminate against Negroes. Me as an individual, not a government.

The government deprived me of Liberty when they told me that I couldn't discriminate against whoever I wanted to.

If I don't want to sell you my house because I think you are a worthless Negro then I should not have to be forced to do it by the oppressive government.

If I don't want to do business with queers or these despicable transsexuals then I should have the Liberty to do so.

Liberals don't understand the concept of Liberty, do they?
Civil Rights act did no such thing
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

tenor.gif


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
Roberts is a swamp creature who flew many times on the Epstein hooker (including underage) express..he's compromised and doing the the swamps bidding. Let's stop pretending otherwise.


The problem is, Justice Gorsuch has our Fifth Column media and their Yellow Journalists in his corner.

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


You are confused Moon Bat.

The 1964 Civil rights Act made it a civil crime for me to discriminate against Negroes. Me as an individual, not a government.

The government deprived me of Liberty when they told me that I couldn't discriminate against whoever I wanted to.

If I don't want to sell you my house because I think you are a worthless Negro then I should not have to be forced to do it by the oppressive government.

If I don't want to do business with queers or these despicable transsexuals then I should have the Liberty to do so.

Liberals don't understand the concept of Liberty, do they?
Civil Rights act did no such thing

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,581
Reaction score
48,353
Points
2,190
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


You are confused Moon Bat.

The 1964 Civil rights Act made it a civil crime for me to discriminate against Negroes. Me as an individual, not a government.

The government deprived me of Liberty when they told me that I couldn't discriminate against whoever I wanted to.

If I don't want to sell you my house because I think you are a worthless Negro then I should not have to be forced to do it by the oppressive government.

If I don't want to do business with queers or these despicable transsexuals then I should have the Liberty to do so.

Liberals don't understand the concept of Liberty, do they?
Civil Rights act did no such thing

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Civil Rights Act is an extension of the 14th amendment.

A great piece of legislation
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
1,240
Points
210
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

tenor.gif


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.

Again I accept your concession.
 

evenflow1969

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
1,792
Points
140
Location
Ohio
Boy, Trump keeps proving over and over that he's shitty at picking important people.

He can't fire this one and throw him under the bus in a tantrum, though.

Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Good damn thing judges tend to have some integrity! It would be a fucking dark world we live in if they had acted like Trump intended.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
222,581
Reaction score
48,353
Points
2,190
Boy, Trump keeps proving over and over that he's shitty at picking important people.

He can't fire this one and throw him under the bus in a tantrum, though.

Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Good damn thing judges tend to have some integrity! It would be a fucking dark world we live in if they had acted like Trump intended.
Funny thing is Trump appointed them thinking they would do his bidding
 

evenflow1969

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
1,792
Points
140
Location
Ohio
Boy, Trump keeps proving over and over that he's shitty at picking important people.

He can't fire this one and throw him under the bus in a tantrum, though.

Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Good damn thing judges tend to have some integrity! It would be a fucking dark world we live in if they had acted like Trump intended.
Funny thing is Trump appointed them thinking they would do his bidding
Ya, I know. Some how that fucking baby man gets people to do his bidding completely adverse to their own well being. I do not understand it. I knew some guys in the military that acted the same way they disappeared in the fog of war. People normally do not follow those that have no interest whatsoever ever in their well being but for some reason Trump is different.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
83,228
Reaction score
27,452
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Boy, Trump keeps proving over and over that he's shitty at picking important people.

He can't fire this one and throw him under the bus in a tantrum, though.

Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are
Good damn thing judges tend to have some integrity! It would be a fucking dark world we live in if they had acted like Trump intended.
Funny thing is Trump appointed them thinking they would do his bidding
Yep, the minute someone does the right thing, the minute they're honest, they're suddenly hated by Trump and his sheep.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,434
Reaction score
37,966
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

... _ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Gorsuch is a "texturalist" he believes in interpreting a law based not on the intentions of those that wrote it, or on the changing times of a living document, but purely by the text of what was written.

And what they wrote prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or sex. And his logic stems from thinking past direct line of sight.

There was a time when it was illegal for people of different races to marry, and an employee could be fired based on the race of his spouse. This is clearly an illegal discrimination. And since then other marriages, once illegal, and thus could be discriminated against, are no longer. And that was how Gorsuch defined what the civil rights act covered. Based on the text, and not on the intentions.

You could argue it was based on changing times, but law is based on changing law. That if discrimination includes that done based on one's family, those new family legal definitions expanded their meaning under law..
How about we play some 7-card stud with the same kind of "living rules", goofball?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

tenor.gif


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…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 within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those 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 with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
1,240
Points
210
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

tenor.gif


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…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 within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those 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 with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
795
Points
200
You have no FACTS only your bias OPINIONS.

tenor.gif


Let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

JWK



The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership detest people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
To the underlined: Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance as well as your homophobia. The Equal Protection clause negates your OPINION on this matter.
Well, there you have it. Instead of refuting the facts presented, you resort to adolescent name calling and post unsubstantiated opinions.

And, with reference to the "equal protection" clause you mention, ”…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 within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those 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 with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

JWK

The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Any questions?

I didn’t think so.

Of course I have a question. Why did you post that? You failed to explain what you glean from the words you posted from the 14th Amendment.

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, want elderly American citizens, who were forced to pay into Medicare all their lives, to surrender and share their Medicare Trust fund with millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders. LINK
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top