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

[Death-Ninja]

You're right .He does not give a shit about the intent of the law. He is a textualist, he cares about the words as written. And as for you, you clearly don't give a shit about others who happen to be different. Your assessment of LGBT people- and they are people-disgusts me.

You know what disgusts me you fucking deviant, mom & dad taking a 10 year old mentally disordered boy named "Desmond," into a homosexual nightclub in NYC while encouraging that mentally ill boy to dress as street-walker, then dance in the most provocative and sexually suggestive manner imaginable as adult homosexual males shower the boy with money, with many of the adult homosexuals going as far as actually placing $5-$20 dollar bills directly between the boys clothing and his skin in just as sexually provocative a manner as the boys grossly inappropriate dance! Now, take your fucking disgust with you to hell you evil fucking creature.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's a stupid response. Had Congress passed a bill and the President signed it into law, that would be one thing. Legislating from the bench means the end of constitutional rule in the United States.

Clearly you do not understand the legitimate role of the high court in upholding the constitution and the rule of law/ equal protection under the law. When the other branches of government fail in that duty, the court must step in and right the ship.
I don't believe for a nanosecond that you people who rail against "legislating from the bench" in a case like this actually support gay rights and that you would support legislation in congress to change the law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You know what disgusts me you fucking deviant, mom & dad taking a 10 year old mentally disordered boy named "Desmond," into a homosexual nightclub in NYC while encouraging that mentally ill boy to dress as street-walker, then dance in the most provocative and sexually suggestive manner imaginable as adult homosexual males shower the boy with money, with many of the adult homosexuals going as far as actually placing $5-$20 dollar bills directly between the boys clothing and his skin in just as sexually provocative a manner as the boys grossly inappropriate dance! Now, take your fucking disgust with you to hell you evil fucking creature.....

Actually it discusses me to if it actually happened. But what the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread? You just a shameless troll engaging in Gish Gallop bullshit

 

[Death-Ninja]

Actually it discusses me to if it actually happened. But what the fuck does this have to do with the topic of this thread? You just a shameless troll engaging in Gish Gallop bullshit

Hey dumb ass, see that name in my sig line, thats me! I'm not hard to find, I am known all over planet earth by people of all races and backgrounds. You're the fucking troll dumb ass, you're part of the problem with the nation, not "Moi," I am 110% the real deal, a genuine American, you, you're a fucking fascist democrat, you fucking disgust the shit out of all genuine Americans....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey dumb ass, see that name in my sig line, thats me! I'm not hard to find, I am known all over planet earth by people of all races and backgrounds. You're the fucking troll dumb ass, you're part of the problem with the nation, not "Moi," I am 110% the real deal, a genuine American, you, you're a fucking fascist democrat, you fucking disgust the shit out of all genuine Americans....

Good fucking God you're a mess. The fact that you have to call me a
dumb ass tells me exactly how immature and insecure you actually are.

You can't even del with my question and instead vomit all over yourself trying to avoid it. Now you have to lower yourself further by calling me a Fascist and anti American. Wipe the spit off of your chin, take a Xanax and try again at an adult and rational response

 

[Death-Ninja]

Good fucking God you're a mess. The fact that you have to call me a
dumb ass tells me exactly how immature and insecure you actually are.

You can't even del with my question and instead vomit all over yourself trying to avoid it. Now you have to lower yourself further by calling me a Fascist and anti American. Wipe the spit off of your chin, take a Xanax and try again at an adult and rational response

Son, the you're act has flopped, you are a fucking troll, you couldn't debate your way out of a paper sack, and you sure as shit haven't a hope in hell of prevailing in such against myself. Again, my name is in my sig line "dumb ass," thats me, where the fuck is your name pajama boy? Everyone on earth knows where I live, you'll not find me hiding behind "internet anonymity" shit for brains, like you are! One other thing douche bag, the last thing anyone who spends even a few moments of time in my company, the absolute last thing they'd ever think to say is, "hey this guy is really insecure, or immature.... "

So fuck you, you're just another intellectually aborted weakling looking to offend, so run along and pull down a statue, or sucker punch some 80 year old from behind.....

 

[johnwk]

Pressure from the people gets the amendment process going. As it should be. And its all the more reason why the courts should not overstep their boundaries.

Mark

Mark,

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:


“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”


Of course, ignoring the very intentions for which the Act was adopted, and expanding its meaning to include a subject matter [sexual deviant behavior] never intended and would obviously have been rejected at the time of enactment, violates a fundamental rule of constitutional and statutory interpretation. This fundamental rule was stated as follows in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903):


”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."


And here we are, the Court doing for the people that which the people or their representatives were unwilling to do. And this allows exactly what Gorsuch indicated he was against the Court doing: 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.”

JWK

It is absolutely shameful for our sexual deviant crowd to hitch their wagon to the civil rights struggle of African Americans who fought to end distinctions being made based upon race and color.

 

[meaner gene]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good fucking God you're a mess. The fact that you have to call me a
dumb ass tells me exactly how immature and insecure you actually are.

You can't even del with my question and instead vomit all over yourself trying to avoid it. Now you have to lower yourself further by calling me a Fascist and anti American. Wipe the spit off of your chin, take a Xanax and try again at an adult and rational response

Son, the you're act has flopped, you are a fucking troll, you couldn't debate your way out of a paper sack, and you sure as shit haven't a hope in hell of prevailing in such against myself. Again, my name is in my sig line "dumb ass," thats me, where the fuck is your name pajama boy? Everyone on earth knows where I live, you'll not find me hiding behind "internet anonymity" shit for brains, like you are! One other thing douche bag, the last thing anyone who spends even a few moments of time in my company, the absolute last thing they'd ever think to say is, "hey this guy is really insecure, or immature.... "

So fuck you, you're just another intellectually aborted weakling looking to offend, so run along and pull down a statue, or sucker punch some 80 year old from behind.....

 

[80zephyr]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

 

[80zephyr]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

I support legislation to protect people based on facts. Trans sexuality is a feeling, not a fact. I couldn't support a law like that any more than I could support a law that compels me to call Progressive Patriot "Mr. President" because he believes himself to be Abe Lincoln.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

I support legislation to protect people based on facts. Trans sexuality is a feeling, not a fact. I couldn't support a law like that any more than I could support a law that compels me to call Progressive Patriot "Mr. President" because he believes himself to be Abe Lincoln.

Mark

The question was: Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people? Or, do you just complain about the courts "legislation from the bench" as a cover for your not really wanting them to have rights. Trans people are real and they are indeed people, regardless of what you think you know about them

 

[80zephyr]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

I support legislation to protect people based on facts. Trans sexuality is a feeling, not a fact. I couldn't support a law like that any more than I could support a law that compels me to call Progressive Patriot "Mr. President" because he believes himself to be Abe Lincoln.

Mark

The question was: Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people? Or, do you just complain about the courts "legislation from the bench" as a cover for your not really wanting them to have rights. Trans people are real and they are indeed people, regardless of what you think you know about them

I gave you my answer. They don't get rights for what they think they are. No one should. Everyone of us is a person, but we should not have rights carved out for our individual idiosyncrasies.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

I support legislation to protect people based on facts. Trans sexuality is a feeling, not a fact. I couldn't support a law like that any more than I could support a law that compels me to call Progressive Patriot "Mr. President" because he believes himself to be Abe Lincoln.

Mark

The question was: Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people? Or, do you just complain about the courts "legislation from the bench" as a cover for your not really wanting them to have rights. Trans people are real and they are indeed people, regardless of what you think you know about them

I gave you my answer. They don't get rights for what they think they are. No one should. Everyone of us is a person, but we should not have rights carved out for our individual idiosyncrasies.

Mark

Thank you for admitting that your original reply, railing against the court was just a smoke screen to avoid saying that you just don't think that LGBT people should be treated with equality. You finally maned up. I suppose that you deserve some credit for doing what most bigots will not do.

 

[johnwk]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

Unlike the communist/socialist Democratic Party Leadership, I support people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. I have no problem with a sexual deviant business owner only hiring other sexual deviants. How about you?

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

Unlike the communist/socialist Democratic Party Leadership, I support people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. I have no problem with a sexual deviant business owner only hiring other sexual deviants. How about you?

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.

So, in other words you are opposed to all civil rights. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Jets]

Let’s cut to the chase here. Gorsuch relied on a broad textual view to reach his conclusion. The dissent relied on a narrow textual view to reach theirs. I don’t think either one is “wrong” per se. it’s just a matter of interpretation.

 

[johnwk]

Justice Gorsuch agreed with you when he wrote:

“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).”

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 at large was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.


In fact, this is the very nefarious and subversive action Gorsuch engaged in when he perverted the meaning of sex within the CRA of 1964, as it was understood by those who framed and passed the Act. And what was Gorsuch’s excuse for ignoring the specific evil being addressed [ending discrimination between men and women in the workplace] and his expanding the Act’s meaning of “sex” to include sexual deviant behavior?


“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act,” Gorsuch wrote, “might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

This is like a failed argument in the 2nd amendment cases. At the time it was written, there were no weapons other than black powder weapons, incapable of fast reloading. Hence their use by the individual was hardly a danger to the general public. They didn't envision an individual ever having the firepower of a regiment.

They didn't envision discrimination based on the sex of a persons spouse or partner, but that doesn't stop the right being extended to future changes due to technology or law.

When same sex marriage became legal, discriminating on that basis also became illegal.

Putting a wrong on top of a wrong? The courts had no power to make gay marriage legal, and they did it anyhow. Then to make matters even worse, they had to follow thru with the latest abomination.

Now, anything is fair game.

Mark

Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?

Unlike the communist/socialist Democratic Party Leadership, I support people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. I have no problem with a sexual deviant business owner only hiring other sexual deviants. How about you?

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.

So, in other words you are opposed to all civil rights. Thank you for your honesty.

So, in your opinion, it is not a civil right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

They are not "liberals" or "progressives". The Democrat Party Leadership is infested with notoriously evil communists and socialists who delude, lure and addict our nations needy with free government cheese used to buy votes which keeps the needy and underprivileged enslaved and dependent.

 

[johnwk]

Let’s cut to the chase here. Gorsuch relied on a broad textual view to reach his conclusion. The dissent relied on a narrow textual view to reach theirs. I don’t think either one is “wrong” per se. it’s just a matter of interpretation.

Wrong! Gorsuch ignored our Constitution's command to adhere to "the rules of the common law", the most fundamental rule being, to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which our constitution was adopted, and, in addition, he ignored the fact Congress never had constitutionally authorized power to add "sex" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

JWK


"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." ___
Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :