Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
No, its not. The courts, thru numerous writings, have been instructed to try to figure out what the original law was intended to do.
Mark
That originalist view went out with the horse and buggy era.
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 :
Gorsuch ruled in a way originalists disagree with. Textualism doesn’t make him wrong. The word “sex” is in the CRA.
Yes, textualism makes him wrong.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Textualism was invented by the left to shape the Constitution the way they want it to be, not the way it was meant to be.
Mark
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
He is in the minority! See: Legal scholarship highlight: Justice Scalia’s textualist legacy
"These and similar cases show that courts do not really believe that “the text is the law” — at least, not always. Scalia’s Supreme Court colleagues did not share his devotion to his textualist ideal. It seems that the newest justice, Justice Neil Gorsuch, may step into Scalia’s textualist role, but the textualist ideal still remains a minority viewpoint.
Why do courts reject the textualist ideal? One reason is that legislatures act generally and in advance, whereas courts encounter statutes at the moment of their application to particular facts. This institutional structure guarantees that legislatures will fail to anticipate everything that statutory text will do and will pass statutes that require courts to deviate from the textualist ideal to reach sound results."
JWK
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
He still does not represent the left as the other poster postulated. The point stands.
That originalist view went out with the horse and buggy era.
You are making stuff up. And, it's not an "originalists'" view. It is following time honored, fundamental rules of construction.
For an example see: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 & n.9 (1984).
"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [467 U.S. 837, 843] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. 9 If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, 10 as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
"The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32 (1981); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 117 -118 (1978); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 745 -746 (1973); Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369 (1946); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932); Webster v. Luther, 163 U.S. 331, 342 (1896). If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect."
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.
Nor making anything up. Originalism is not embraced by most justices. In fact, it’s a major reason Robert Bork didn’t make it to the SC. Promulgating it as a judicial philosophy doesn’t make it so.
Please describe in detail what incalculable damage has been done tto our country as a result of the rights that have been extended to LGBT folks.
That originalist view went out with the horse and buggy era.
You are making stuff up. And, it's not an "originalists'" view. It is following time honored, fundamental rules of construction.
For an example see: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 & n.9 (1984).
"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [467 U.S. 837, 843] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. 9 If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, 10 as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
"The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32 (1981); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 117 -118 (1978); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 745 -746 (1973); Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369 (1946); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932); Webster v. Luther, 163 U.S. 331, 342 (1896). If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect."
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.
Nor making anything up. Originalism is not embraced by most justices. In fact, it’s a major reason Robert Bork didn’t make it to the SC. Promulgating it as a judicial philosophy doesn’t make it so.
If not orginalism, then what? If the constitution doesn't have to be interpreted as written, what are the parameters used for judicial rulings?
Not too many years ago, no one really gave a shit about the Supreme Court. Now, everyone does. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is happening?
Mark
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
He is in the minority! See: Legal scholarship highlight: Justice Scalia’s textualist legacy
"These and similar cases show that courts do not really believe that “the text is the law” — at least, not always. Scalia’s Supreme Court colleagues did not share his devotion to his textualist ideal. It seems that the newest justice, Justice Neil Gorsuch, may step into Scalia’s textualist role, but the textualist ideal still remains a minority viewpoint.
Why do courts reject the textualist ideal? One reason is that legislatures act generally and in advance, whereas courts encounter statutes at the moment of their application to particular facts. This institutional structure guarantees that legislatures will fail to anticipate everything that statutory text will do and will pass statutes that require courts to deviate from the textualist ideal to reach sound results."
JWK
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
He still does not represent the left as the other poster postulated. The point stands.
No, the point does not stand. It is the left that "interprets" the Constitution to the point of absurdity. No side is 100% pure. But the left is the main culprit.
Mark
That originalist view went out with the horse and buggy era.
You are making stuff up. And, it's not an "originalists'" view. It is following time honored, fundamental rules of construction.
For an example see: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 & n.9 (1984).
"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [467 U.S. 837, 843] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. 9 If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, 10 as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
"The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32 (1981); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 117 -118 (1978); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 745 -746 (1973); Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369 (1946); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932); Webster v. Luther, 163 U.S. 331, 342 (1896). If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect."
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.
Nor making anything up. Originalism is not embraced by most justices. In fact, it’s a major reason Robert Bork didn’t make it to the SC. Promulgating it as a judicial philosophy doesn’t make it so.
If not orginalism, then what? If the constitution doesn't have to be interpreted as written, what are the parameters used for judicial rulings?
Not too many years ago, no one really gave a shit about the Supreme Court. Now, everyone does. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is happening?
Mark
That’s why textualism works, contrary to what everyone says. You know the part where it’s interpreted as written. The problem is ideology dictates when that doesn’t “work“.
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 :
Gorsuch ruled in a way originalists disagree with. Textualism doesn’t make him wrong. The word “sex” is in the CRA.
Yes, textualism makes him wrong.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Textualism was invented by the left to shape the Constitution the way they want it to be, not the way it was meant to be.
Mark
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
Nope. He was simply wrong.
Mark
That originalist view went out with the horse and buggy era.
You are making stuff up. And, it's not an "originalists'" view. It is following time honored, fundamental rules of construction.
For an example see: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 & n.9 (1984).
"When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, [467 U.S. 837, 843] as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. 9 If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, 10 as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
"The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. See, e. g., FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 32 (1981); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 117 -118 (1978); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U.S. 726, 745 -746 (1973); Volkswagenwerk v. FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); Social Security Board v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 369 (1946); Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 16 (1932); Webster v. Luther, 163 U.S. 331, 342 (1896). If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect."
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.
Nor making anything up. Originalism is not embraced by most justices. In fact, it’s a major reason Robert Bork didn’t make it to the SC. Promulgating it as a judicial philosophy doesn’t make it so.
If not orginalism, then what? If the constitution doesn't have to be interpreted as written, what are the parameters used for judicial rulings?
Not too many years ago, no one really gave a shit about the Supreme Court. Now, everyone does. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is happening?
Mark
That’s why textualism works, contrary to what everyone says. You know the part where it’s interpreted as written. The problem is ideology dictates when that doesn’t “work“.
We disagree.
Mark
Please describe in detail what incalculable damage has been done tto our country as a result of the rights that have been extended to LGBT folks.
People are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Additionally, if our Constitution's defined and limited grants of power can be set aside by those entrusted to support and defend it, as is the case with Gorsuch's opinion, how long will it take before the entire Constitution becomes a meaningless document which is subject to the whims and fancies of those it was designed to control and regulate?
JWK
Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.
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 :
Gorsuch ruled in a way originalists disagree with. Textualism doesn’t make him wrong. The word “sex” is in the CRA.
Yes, textualism makes him wrong.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Textualism was invented by the left to shape the Constitution the way they want it to be, not the way it was meant to be.
Mark
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
Nope. He was simply wrong.
Mark
That’s an opinion, not fact.
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 :
Gorsuch ruled in a way originalists disagree with. Textualism doesn’t make him wrong. The word “sex” is in the CRA.
Yes, textualism makes him wrong.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Textualism was invented by the left to shape the Constitution the way they want it to be, not the way it was meant to be.
Mark
Yet, Justice Scalia expoused textualism. Is he the “left”.
Nope. He was simply wrong.
Mark
That’s an opinion, not fact.
No. It is not an "opinion".
Justice Scalia's reliance upon "textualism" to determine the meaning of our Constitution violates that part of the Constitution requiring an adherence to "the rules of the common law" ___ the most fundamental rule being is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted.
The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is 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."
This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”
It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce it, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).
Those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and the rules of English Common Law, ought to remember what is stated in American Jurisprudence:
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, but are tied to adhering to our Constitution's text, and documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text.
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
This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.
That would be the equivalent of saying Justice Blacks BOR incorporation theory was wrong
and Justice Frankfurters broad application of the Due Process clause was correct. It doesn’t work that way.
This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.
No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.
JWK
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
I'm willing to bet that your whining about this is very much about gay rights. I find it hard to believe anyone who gets all bent out of shape by this decision would have supported a legislative remedy. And you claim that the decision was unconstitutional is merely an uninformed opinion based on how you think that it is supposed to workPlease describe in detail what incalculable damage has been done tto our country as a result of the rights that have been extended to LGBT folks.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.Would you have supported legislation to legalize same sex marriage and to amend the civil rights act to include LGBT people?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
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
Lol. The left is a hoot. Disagree, and you're a bigot or a racist. When you have NOTHING else to back your argument, you turn to it, like a fish to water. You know that my analysis is 100% factual, and that eroding our system of law and of justice will cause incalculable damage to our country.
You don't care. Easier to just call someone a bigot, feel morally superior, and continue to live the lie you believe. The nice thing is, is that the country you are creating is also the one your children will live in. I hope they hold you personally responsible.
Mark
Lol. This isn't about gay rights. This is about how they were gotten. The ends do not justify the means. You are more than happy that the Constitution wasn't followed in this case, but you'll cry like a schoolgirl when a case goes against you under the same circumstances.
Mark
Bull. All rights have limits and conditions. People do not have a right to discriminate. If you are in business you must treat everyone equallyPeople are being denied their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
It will become meaningless only if we ignore the basic principles of equal protection under the law and due process, which you and other here seem to be advocation. I wonder if you guys who take the same position if you were on the receiving end of discriminationAdditionally, if our Constitution's defined and limited grants of power can be set aside by those entrusted to support and defend it, as is the case with Gorsuch's opinion, how long will it take before the entire Constitution becomes a meaningless document which is subject to the whims and fancies of those it was designed to control and regulate?
