Gorsuch

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Did anyone even mention how that oart of the civil rights act is unconstitutional to begin with?
Did the amendment process just ******* disappear?

You have hit on Gorsuch's REAL reasoning here.

Again, way too much to explain, but he must follow precedent. Which he did. To a SHOCKING degree.


.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

 

[g5000]

Blackmail is a hell of a weapon.

We read and hear about dirt on politicians etc.

Now imagine the stuff we don't hear and read about. Generally, EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING WE SEE is always the tip of the iceberg.

Sounds like they got some girls to pay him a visit at some point etc. Let me put it that way.

Wow. You just beg for someone to hoax you.

 

[Care4all]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Yes.

The phrase repeated by Gorsuch himself (referring to a sign on Scalia's desk):

"stupid, but constitutional"

 

[martybegan]

Gorsuch is a textualist. This means he makes his decisions based on the plain meaning of the words used in statute and not the intent of the legislators who wrote the law.

The case turned on the meaning of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Gorsuch wrote: “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” He concluded with “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” And therefore, he said, the employer is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and the law.

I would not get my panties in a bunch if I were a conservative because his interpretation of the Civil Rights Act was in line with conservative constitutional interpretive principles despite what those on this board may think.

Conservatives will be praising him on his next decision I am sure.

Here is the full opinion for those that are interested:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Sorry, but Alito and Kavenaugh were spot on on their dissents.

This was up to congress, just like it was up to the States that wanted to to legislatively update their own Civil rights laws.

When NY expanded their laws to sexuality and gender identity I was fine with it, because it went through the proper process.

However the issue now is that without clear legislative backing, the federal courts will now have to sort out where this application of the law ends when it meets 1st amendment rights.

Before when a Catholic school didn't hire a gay person, or fired one that came out, they could either rely on state law cut outs for religious organizations, or point to the 1964 act that didn't include sexuality.

Now the federal "out" is gone, and all of this will have to be re-litigated again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[martybegan]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Sex is not sexuality, nor is it what gender you think you are. If Congress wanted to add those, like some States did, I would be fine with it.

 

[Care4all]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Sex is not sexuality, nor is it what gender you think you are. If Congress wanted to add those, like some States did, I would be fine with it.

If the female sex can marry a man, the male sex can marry a man.......

Where is sexuality in that???

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Sex is not sexuality, nor is it what gender you think you are. If Congress wanted to add those, like some States did, I would be fine with it.

No, I agree with Care4all. They did NOT intend the law to mean what it actually says. But, the SCOTUS are not the legislature. They can't fix fucked up laws. Only legislators can do that.

So, anybody can fake whatever the **** they want and can sue and cause all sorts of problems, under the CURRENT law, as written.



Giving people what they want is sometimes the best cure for their nonsense.

 

[TNHarley]

A persons sex has nothing to do with who they ****

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

Yeah, the penalty was unconstitutional but it's not a SC justice job to rewrite a law and that's exactly what he did. He was supposed to send it back to the house which had turned and the whole farce of a law would have ended.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A persons sex has nothing to do with who they ****

Agreed.

But, who they **** has nothing to do with who they marry. Just look at the Clintons.


.

 

[martybegan]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

You thought you got a right wing ally and yes man & instead you got a true juridst.

When your appointment is for life, do you want to go down in history as a biased political hack or be mentioned as a great Justice?

The SC doesnt have the power to legislate from the bench.
Your whole post is horseshit.

How did they legislate from the bench? Did you read Gorsuchs summary regarding the ruling? He claims they simply followed the rule of law, as written on sexual discrimination....

Basically....

If a woman can marry a man... And not be fired for it, then a man can marry a man, and can not be fired for it.

According to the sexual discrimination protection, under the existing law.

It may not be what those law creators a half century ago meant to cover, but the wording of the law, as written, gives the SC ruling, legs.... which is not legislating from the bench, but following word for word, what is written in the law itself.

Sex is not sexuality, nor is it what gender you think you are. If Congress wanted to add those, like some States did, I would be fine with it.

If the female sex can marry a man, the male sex can marry a man.......

Where is sexuality in that???

it's an end run, jiggery pokery.

Same as Obergfell.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

Yeah, the penalty was unconstitutional but it's not a SC justice job to rewrite a law and that's exactly what he did. He was supposed to send it back to the house which had turned and the whole farce of a law would have ended.

Had it NOT been deemed a tax, we would still be stuck with that stupid penalty.

You are not seeing the big picture. The "tax" designation made it a budget issue.

Somebody please explain. I can't right now.

.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

The trade off of that ruling versus once again exposing the left for what they really are was worth it

The left bleats about every conservative Justice nomination "they are partisans" but both of Trump's picks have went off the reservation so to speak on occasion when they felt the law demanded it, could that be said of ANY of the liberals on the bench? No. They are partisan twats who will always vote exactly as expectd.

As for this ruling. Who cares, you're pretty dumb if you can't figure out how to fire a ****** without them realizing you fired them cuz they are a ******. Same with baking a cake for a ******. If you can't figure out how to get out of that without being sued, you're stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

The trade off of that ruling versus once again exposing the left for what they really are was worth it

The left bleats about every conservative Justice nomination "they are partisans" but both of Trump's picks have went off the reservation so to speak on occasion when they felt the law demanded it, could that be said of ANY of the liberals on the bench? No. They are partisan twats who will always vote exactly as expectd.

As for this ruling. Who cares, you're pretty dumb if you can't figure out how to fire a ****** without them realizing you fired them cuz they are a ******. Same with baking a cake for a ******. If you can't figure out how to get out of that without being sued, you're stupid.

And, this holding moves one step closer to shit-canning the law in question.

.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

Roberts too.

The big criticism of Roberts is his holding that the Obamacare penalty was a Tax.

That was the correct holding. It was a tax. Even though the Democrats sold it SPECIFICALLY as NOT a tax.

But, as a tax, it can be easily REMOVED....which it was.

There is not much a SC Justice can do with a shitty law that is otherwise constitutional BUT make sure everybody knows just how shitty that law really is, and make it much easier for legislatures to GET RID OF said shitty law (see Gorsuch here).

Yeah, the penalty was unconstitutional but it's not a SC justice job to rewrite a law and that's exactly what he did. He was supposed to send it back to the house which had turned and the whole farce of a law would have ended.

Had it NOT been deemed a tax, we would still be stuck with that stupid penalty.

You are not seeing the big picture. The "tax" designation made it a budget issue.

Somebody please explain. I can't right now.

.

No need to explain. I completely get it. We wouldn't be stuck with the penalty because the law could have been struck down due to the penalty. Roberts wanted it to be a law so he rewrote it instead of doing his job and sending it back to the house.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

I thought he was going to be the greatest SC pick in decades. Instead, he legislated from the bench.
What ever happened to constitutionalists?
Good gawd we are so fucked. Cant find the rule of law ANYWHERE.

The trade off of that ruling versus once again exposing the left for what they really are was worth it

The left bleats about every conservative Justice nomination "they are partisans" but both of Trump's picks have went off the reservation so to speak on occasion when they felt the law demanded it, could that be said of ANY of the liberals on the bench? No. They are partisan twats who will always vote exactly as expectd.

As for this ruling. Who cares, you're pretty dumb if you can't figure out how to fire a ****** without them realizing you fired them cuz they are a ******. Same with baking a cake for a ******. If you can't figure out how to get out of that without being sued, you're stupid.

And, this holding moves one step closer to shit-canning the law in question.

.

The entire damn law should be ruled unconstitutional, how can it possibly be okay to discriminate for SOME things, but not others? That's not equal protection of the law.