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

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

That 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, 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.

In summarizing the 14th Amendment, one of its supporters says the following:

“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
 
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
Once they have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land they suddenly realize they aren't beholden to any idiot ideology any more.
I'm sure glad SOMEONE understands and appreciates the gravity of the position they hold.
 
I'm sure glad SOMEONE understands and appreciates the gravity of the position they hold.

Once on the Court, I should never be about the position a member holds. It should be about abiding by the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



JWK
 
This was the sole reason why I voted for Trump, Gorsuch's treachery in this naked piece of judicial legislation is profound and irrevocable. I'd absolutely love to see him, and Roberts turn up dead, and why is it that republicans, unlike democrats, never see to that for us, as Obama did with Scalia? I cannot be any more explicit, I would consider Roberts, and Gorsuch's deaths as extraordinarily satisfying, these creatures are fucking evil and need to be extirpated from our society! Mark my words, next up both of these evil fucking creatures slam-dunk The Little Sisters of the Poor for Obama, who hates them!

Or the Little Sisters of the Poor can stop trying to run their employee's sex lives. That would work, too.

Dude, you have problems.

The reality of it is you guys look at SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where you can get things you couldn't possibly get through the legislative process.
 
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
Once they have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land they suddenly realize they aren't beholden to any idiot ideology any more.
I'm sure glad SOMEONE understands and appreciates the gravity of the position they hold.
Some get it, some don't.

I don't think Bart O'kavenaugh ever will.
 
The reality of it is you guys look at SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where you can get things you couldn't possibly get through the legislative process.

Actually, there are many groups having various political leanings, who wish to use the SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where they can get things they couldn't possibly get through the legislative process, and the meaning and limits of the Constitution be dammed!

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 
The reality of it is you guys look at SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where you can get things you couldn't possibly get through the legislative process.

Actually, there are many groups having various political leanings, who wish to use the SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where they can get things they couldn't possibly get through the legislative process, and the meaning and limits of the Constitution be dammed!

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Just admit you are upset that you can't use religion as a shield to hate gays in a material way......

You are free to hate gays in your personal life tho......at least you have that.......
 
What Gorsuch did is to rule that you can no longer refuse to hire child molesters, pedophiliacs, or rapists. When the act was written, the intended definition of sex was body parts a person was born with - biology. Gorsuch has redefined the bill to include all things related to sex so now, no matter what perversion or evil a person espouses, as long as that perversion or evil is sexual in nature, is protected.

When talking heads say that we have a 5:4 conservative court, I have always argued that it was wrong, we had a 6:3 liberal court. Now we have a 7:2 liberal court. Honestly, I think the Constitution is over. The court will rule however they choose, totally ignoring the Constitution - which is what they've done since Marbury anyway.
 
What Gorsuch did is to rule that you can no longer refuse to hire child molesters, pedophiliacs, or rapists. When the act was written, the intended definition of sex was body parts a person was born with - biology. Gorsuch has redefined the bill to include all things related to sex so now, no matter what perversion or evil a person espouses, as long as that perversion or evil is sexual in nature, is protected.

When talking heads say that we have a 5:4 conservative court, I have always argued that it was wrong, we had a 6:3 liberal court. Now we have a 7:2 liberal court. Honestly, I think the Constitution is over. The court will rule however they choose, totally ignoring the Constitution - which is what they've done since Marbury anyway.
What a drama queen

Has nothing to do with hiring criminals. As much as you would like it, Homosexuality is not a crime.
 
What Gorsuch did is to rule that you can no longer refuse to hire child molesters, pedophiliacs, or rapists. When the act was written, the intended definition of sex was body parts a person was born with - biology. Gorsuch has redefined the bill to include all things related to sex so now, no matter what perversion or evil a person espouses, as long as that perversion or evil is sexual in nature, is protected.

When talking heads say that we have a 5:4 conservative court, I have always argued that it was wrong, we had a 6:3 liberal court. Now we have a 7:2 liberal court. Honestly, I think the Constitution is over. The court will rule however they choose, totally ignoring the Constitution - which is what they've done since Marbury anyway.

Gorsuch’s own words confirm he has meddled in the “legislative process”!

In Gorsuch’s written opinion we find:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, (2019) (slip op., at 6–7).”

“With this in mind, our task is clear. We must determine the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s command that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). To do so, we orient ourselves to the time of the statute’s adoption, here 1964, and begin by examining the key statutory terms in turn before assessing their impact on the cases at hand and then confirming our work against this Court’s precedents.”


Gorsuch is absolutely correct in pointing out the Court “… normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” And the explanation Gorsuch gives for doing so is only too obvious to create any contention. But every now and then a word or term used in legislation may be construed in a manner that if applied to the statute, would pervert the evil intended to be addressed by the legislation at the time of its adoption, and it would allow judicial decisions which neither the legislature or public at large would have embraced at the time of the legislation’s adoption. In other words, it would allow our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.

So, the real question to be answered is, did the legislature, when passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intend to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct? To this, the obvious answer is a resounding no!

Let us not forget the fundamental principle requiring the above question to be answered is emphasized by our very own Supreme Court. In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which the Court confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

Gorsuch’s’ novel approach, parsing the meaning of “sex” within the statute in a manner which perverts the narrow evil being addressed at the time of the legislation’s adoption, opens the door for judges to “add to, remodel, update, or detract” from the original evil being addressed, and allows “amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.” And this denies “the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.
 
This was the sole reason why I voted for Trump, Gorsuch's treachery in this naked piece of judicial legislation is profound and irrevocable. I'd absolutely love to see him, and Roberts turn up dead, and why is it that republicans, unlike democrats, never see to that for us, as Obama did with Scalia? I cannot be any more explicit, I would consider Roberts, and Gorsuch's deaths as extraordinarily satisfying, these creatures are fucking evil and need to be extirpated from our society! Mark my words, next up both of these evil fucking creatures slam-dunk The Little Sisters of the Poor for Obama, who hates them!

Or the Little Sisters of the Poor can stop trying to run their employee's sex lives. That would work, too.

Dude, you have problems.

The reality of it is you guys look at SCOTUS as a magic wishing well where you can get things you couldn't possibly get through the legislative process.
All of those extremist judges that thwarted the will of the people can be done the other way when the time comes. It always does. A few decades more or less. At some point you might have to put a weapon to the head of a person to force him to work.
 
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.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Roberts is more worried about his legacy then the law.

Which is bullshit, frankly.

Mark
 
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.


You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's about defending our Constitution, a system of government by reason and choice of the people, and not being subject to the whims and fancies of our public servants.

Keep in mind our Constitution does provide for change, but only by its amendment process in which the people participate. To allow our public servants to ignore our constitution, even if the breach appears to be just, opens the door to our Constitution being a dead letter and the whims and fancies of those in power becomes the rule of law.


We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:


“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.


JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Wrong again
In 200 plus years there have only been thirty something amendments. Most changes have come through judicial interpretation.
Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.
Sucks being you. Gays now have the same protections under the law as you do.

We have lost our way. If equal protection was there, why did it take an amendment to give women the right to vote? Couldn't the court have simply said "its been there all the time"?

Sure they could have. But they understood that unilaterally making that change makes them a law creator, not a law decider.

And if they did that, the court would become more powerful and politicized, and would reek with politics with every decision.

That is where we are today. The system has been corrupted.

Mark
 
Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.


You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's about defending our Constitution, a system of government by reason and choice of the people, and not being subject to the whims and fancies of our public servants.

Keep in mind our Constitution does provide for change, but only by its amendment process in which the people participate. To allow our public servants to ignore our constitution, even if the breach appears to be just, opens the door to our Constitution being a dead letter and the whims and fancies of those in power becomes the rule of law.


We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:


“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.


JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Wrong again
In 200 plus years there have only been thirty something amendments. Most changes have come through judicial interpretation.
Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.
Sucks being you. Gays now have the same protections under the law as you do.

We have lost our way. If equal protection was there, why did it take an amendment to give women the right to vote? Couldn't the court have simply said "its been there all the time"?

Sure they could have. But they understood that unilaterally making that change makes them a law creator, not a law decider.

And if they did that, the court would become more powerful and politicized, and would reek with politics with every decision.

That is where we are today. The system has been corrupted.

Mark
The amendment process is busted.

Our Congress can’t even agree to pass a simple budget, let alone Amend the Constitution
 
I find it HILARIOUS when you get your judges as recommended by The Heritage Foundation, and then whine about their decisions.

heres-a-tissue-for-your-issue-quote-1.jpg
 
Gorsuch’s own words confirm he has meddled in the “legislative process”!

In Gorsuch’s written opinion we find:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President.

Gorsuch played an intentionally deceptive game to accomplish his own will rather than that of the Constitution. The court is completely wrong to take words according to their meaning at the time of enactment. What they should consider, and what Gorsuch previously pretended to consider, was original intent. They are two completely different things. Many words have multiple meaning so the Court doesn't get to (well, shouldn't get to) choose alternative meanings, even if broadly accepted.

The intent of the Congress was that people should not be discriminated against for having a natural vagina or penis. There was clearly no intent to protect pedophiles and rapists, the incestuous, or any other person based on their sexual perversions. In fact, Congress has explicitly refused to modify the act to add protections for sexual behaviors.
 
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 for gays.

It is his legacy. Conservatives can push him, but only so far.
I don't think Roberts is concerned with more than the courts standing in law. That he tries to avoid what looks like "political" decisions by the court, and instead grounds them purely in law. Roberts wants to avoid a court that looks partisan.
Conservatives think they own him and that he should rubber stamp any hateful, biased legislation they put in front of him.

That would be Clarence Thomas

Clarence is still channeling Scalia.

Never has been able to think for himself, and his teabagger wife is a f'n idiot.

ndwxyUp7GMZrNaLPjl8U2qJsO_PsQfDkCNrG0FVBlwNsoLaBYdXpYQM9Qhv4SDWv8GmCHYNyDsCV3_mv99wwsGjspPFg7EI7uj0gAND4Z6hOX9iQ18jZb2c6czQoQ3v9BjdEcgqkthN7ZNLvBVx4BsIvobI
 
What Gorsuch did is to rule that you can no longer refuse to hire child molesters, pedophiliacs, or rapists. When the act was written, the intended definition of sex was body parts a person was born with - biology. Gorsuch has redefined the bill to include all things related to sex so now, no matter what perversion or evil a person espouses, as long as that perversion or evil is sexual in nature, is protected.

When talking heads say that we have a 5:4 conservative court, I have always argued that it was wrong, we had a 6:3 liberal court. Now we have a 7:2 liberal court. Honestly, I think the Constitution is over. The court will rule however they choose, totally ignoring the Constitution - which is what they've done since Marbury anyway.

Gorsuch’s own words confirm he has meddled in the “legislative process”!

In Gorsuch’s written opinion we find:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, (2019) (slip op., at 6–7).”

“With this in mind, our task is clear. We must determine the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s command that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). To do so, we orient ourselves to the time of the statute’s adoption, here 1964, and begin by examining the key statutory terms in turn before assessing their impact on the cases at hand and then confirming our work against this Court’s precedents.”


Gorsuch is absolutely correct in pointing out the Court “… normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” And the explanation Gorsuch gives for doing so is only too obvious to create any contention. But every now and then a word or term used in legislation may be construed in a manner that if applied to the statute, would pervert the evil intended to be addressed by the legislation at the time of its adoption, and it would allow judicial decisions which neither the legislature or public at large would have embraced at the time of the legislation’s adoption. In other words, it would allow our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.

So, the real question to be answered is, did the legislature, when passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intend to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct? To this, the obvious answer is a resounding no!

Let us not forget the fundamental principle requiring the above question to be answered is emphasized by our very own Supreme Court. In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which the Court confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

Gorsuch’s’ novel approach, parsing the meaning of “sex” within the statute in a manner which perverts the narrow evil being addressed at the time of the legislation’s adoption, opens the door for judges to “add to, remodel, update, or detract” from the original evil being addressed, and allows “amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.” And this denies “the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

No need for a new amendment
We already have one

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
 
No need for a new amendment
We already have one

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

Nothing in the Constitution requires me to treat you equally. That applies to government. I can hire or fire anyone for any reason. The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government any authority to enforce equal rights on private individuals or companies. Even so, there was most certainly nothing in the law supporting the interpretation by Gorsuch's transexual staff member who wrote the opinion for him.
 
Nothing in the Constitution requires me to treat you equally. That applies to government. I can hire or fire anyone for any reason. The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government any authority to enforce equal rights on private individuals or companies. Even so, there was most certainly nothing in the law supporting the interpretation by Gorsuch's transexual staff member who wrote the opinion for him.
You can be as big a prick as you like.

Your business?
Not necessarily so
 

Forum List

Back
Top