S.C. defies Constitution, mocks oath of office, creates singular rights for sexual deviants

[Dana7360]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

The right to be treated just like everyone else is not "singular rights".

People are being left to mutually agree in their contracts and in their associations. It's their hiring and firing which has to has to be fair and unbiased on the basis of race, gender or sex.

Why is that so hard for you fools? Your right to be an ignorant asshole, is trumped by the right that everyone should have to be treated fairly in jobs, housing and health care.

Where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

From the Declaration of Independence:

Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The proper method for change is found in Article V of our Constitution.

The majority opinion ignores the proper method for change ___ Article V ___ and in so doing has subverted our Constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.


JWK

The 14th amendment is a part of the constitution. Pay attention to the last sentence in bold.

Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So that equal rights law has to include everyone, including homosexuals.

Try another lie the one above doesn't work.

No matter what you say, you're wrong. The Supreme Court ruled so.

You lose. Again. Loser.

 

[Wyatt earp]

See: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers

June 15, 2020,

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.
In decisions on two separate cases, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.”

What the majority members [GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined] on our Supreme Court fail or refuse to establish is, the authority under our federal Constitution delegating power to Congress to prohibit by legislation [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] that a business owner is prohibited to make distinctions based upon sex, or, legislate in a manner which impinges upon the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


In fact, the 14the Amendment, which allegedly grants such power, turns out to be a fabrication created by those who have been unable to amend our Constitution to accommodate their desires.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

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

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

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

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The law must be enforced equally upon every “person” and does not apply to “identifiable groups”.

So where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


Is it not a fact that the 15th Amendment was adopted to prohibit a new type of discrimination? Discrimination at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection?


The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg in the infamous VMI case] but only extended the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”


If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, which a majority on our Supreme Court now seems to contend, including distinctions based upon sexual deviant identifications, then why were the above mentioned amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as the Court’s majority now contends?

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

If you dont want to be gay anymore just stop being gay. Problem solved.

Congrats this must be a happy day for you!!!

Me so excited for you gay boi.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

The right to be treated just like everyone else is not "singular rights".

People are being left to mutually agree in their contracts and in their associations. It's their hiring and firing which has to has to be fair and unbiased on the basis of race, gender or sex.

Why is that so hard for you fools? Your right to be an ignorant asshole, is trumped by the right that everyone should have to be treated fairly in jobs, housing and health care.

Where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

From the Declaration of Independence:

Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The proper method for change is found in Article V of our Constitution.

The majority opinion ignores the proper method for change ___ Article V ___ and in so doing has subverted our Constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.


JWK

The 14th amendment is a part of the constitution. Pay attention to the last sentence in bold.

Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So that equal rights law has to include everyone, including homosexuals.

Try another lie the one above doesn't work.

No matter what you say, you're wrong. The Supreme Court ruled so.

You lose. Again. Loser.

It didn't include Indians when passed, moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Anyways who cares, the writing was on the wall next people who identify as a dinosaur will be protected so will men and little boys, girls and elephants.

 

[johnwk]

Stop lying.

What is the lie?

JWK

Answer my question.

I asked you what special rights did the supreme court give homosexual people.

Seems you can't answer that.

Which is where the lie is.

There are no special rights given to gay people. The court just reaffirmed that gay people have the same right to a job as everyone else. Apparently you don't believe that. Too bad for you. You can't have your way.

You want to retain the special right to discriminate against homosexual people.

So tell me what special right did the Supreme Court give homosexual people?

The singular right approved of by the Court is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. The only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting.

This singular right approved of by the S.C. in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action.

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

The right to be treated just like everyone else is not "singular rights".

People are being left to mutually agree in their contracts and in their associations. It's their hiring and firing which has to has to be fair and unbiased on the basis of race, gender or sex.

Why is that so hard for you fools? Your right to be an ignorant asshole, is trumped by the right that everyone should have to be treated fairly in jobs, housing and health care.

Where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

From the Declaration of Independence:

Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The proper method for change is found in Article V of our Constitution.

The majority opinion ignores the proper method for change ___ Article V ___ and in so doing has subverted our Constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.


JWK

The 14th amendment is a part of the constitution. Pay attention to the last sentence in bold.

Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

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

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

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

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The law must be enforced equally upon every “person” and does not apply to “identifiable groups”.

So where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

 

[Dana7360]

Stop lying.

What is the lie?

JWK

Answer my question.

I asked you what special rights did the supreme court give homosexual people.

Seems you can't answer that.

Which is where the lie is.

There are no special rights given to gay people. The court just reaffirmed that gay people have the same right to a job as everyone else. Apparently you don't believe that. Too bad for you. You can't have your way.

You want to retain the special right to discriminate against homosexual people.

So tell me what special right did the Supreme Court give homosexual people?

The singular right approved of by the Court is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. The only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting.

This singular right approved of by the S.C. in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action.

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

The 14th Amendment makes everything you posted worthless and meaningless.

What you posted is worthless. The supreme court says so.

You lost. Loser. No amount of garbage about the word sex not being in some sentence is going to validate your lies. No amount of garbage about contracts is going to validate your lies. You really should just give up because you're making a fool of yourself. And you're giving me and those like me the joy of seeing you come unglued about it. It's funny.

The truth is you lost. The Supreme Court ruled. Employers have to follow the law or will be sued.

Sucks for you and homophobes in our nation. You can't discriminate against homosexuals anymore.

Deal with it.

Meanwhile I'm having a fantastic time seeing you losers lie, whine and throw hissy fits. It's very funny.

Loser.

 

[johnwk]

Stop lying.

What is the lie?

JWK

Answer my question.

I asked you what special rights did the supreme court give homosexual people.

Seems you can't answer that.

Which is where the lie is.

There are no special rights given to gay people. The court just reaffirmed that gay people have the same right to a job as everyone else. Apparently you don't believe that. Too bad for you. You can't have your way.

You want to retain the special right to discriminate against homosexual people.

So tell me what special right did the Supreme Court give homosexual people?

The singular right approved of by the Court is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. The only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting.

This singular right approved of by the S.C. in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action.

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

The 14th Amendment makes everything you posted worthless and meaningless.

What you posted is worthless. The supreme court says so.

You lost. Loser. No amount of garbage about the word sex not being in some sentence is going to validate your lies. No amount of garbage about contracts is going to validate your lies. You really should just give up because you're making a fool of yourself. And you're giving me and those like me the joy of seeing you come unglued about it. It's funny.

The truth is you lost. The Supreme Court ruled. Employers have to follow the law or will be sued.

Sucks for you and homophobes in our nation. You can't discriminate against homosexuals anymore.

Deal with it.

Meanwhile I'm having a fantastic time seeing you losers lie, whine and throw hissy fits. It's very funny.

Loser.

So, you can't defend the ruling as a matter of law. And this tells me you are not a friend of the rule of law and that you embrace the rule of man or mob-rule.

JWK

 

[Seawytch]

Stop lying.

What is the lie?

JWK

Answer my question.

I asked you what special rights did the supreme court give homosexual people.

Seems you can't answer that.

Which is where the lie is.

There are no special rights given to gay people. The court just reaffirmed that gay people have the same right to a job as everyone else. Apparently you don't believe that. Too bad for you. You can't have your way.

You want to retain the special right to discriminate against homosexual people.

So tell me what special right did the Supreme Court give homosexual people?

The singular right approved of by the Court is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. The only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting.

This singular right approved of by the S.C. in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action.

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

The 14th Amendment makes everything you posted worthless and meaningless.

What you posted is worthless. The supreme court says so.

You lost. Loser. No amount of garbage about the word sex not being in some sentence is going to validate your lies. No amount of garbage about contracts is going to validate your lies. You really should just give up because you're making a fool of yourself. And you're giving me and those like me the joy of seeing you come unglued about it. It's funny.

The truth is you lost. The Supreme Court ruled. Employers have to follow the law or will be sued.

Sucks for you and homophobes in our nation. You can't discriminate against homosexuals anymore.

Deal with it.

Meanwhile I'm having a fantastic time seeing you losers lie, whine and throw hissy fits. It's very funny.

Loser.

So, you can't defend the ruling as a matter of law. And this tells me you are not a friend of the rule of law and that you embrace the rule of man or mob-rule.

JWK

As a matter of LAW, the LGBTQ Community is to be treated exactly like every other minority in employment.

 

[playtime]

Translation: all men are created equal

And the traditional marriage ways take another beatdown. You ain't going to be happy until that tradition is destroyed and 100% of the children born re to single parents or parents of the same sex or multiple parents of multiple sexes. And of course as long as we are taxed for this at high rates.

uh-huh

donny defiled his ' traditional ' marriage bed by rawdogging a porn star a mere 4 months after his 3rd ' traditional ' wife gave birth to his 5th spawn, putting them at risk for all kinds nasty things.

his 4th spawn by ' traditional ' wife #2 was CONceived whilst still married to
' traditional ' wife #1.

so save it with yer 'traditional' family values.

 

[johnwk]

As a matter of LAW, the LGBTQ Community is to be treated exactly like every other minority in employment.

The S.C. ruling, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is intentionally designed to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against an employer who allegedly fires an employee based upon their sexual proclivities. The abuse of power involved is, Congress is not authorized, by our Constitution, to prohibit distinctions based upon sex ___ the exception being the 19th Amendment which forbids the right to vote to be denied based upon “sex”.

As a matter of law, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is authorized to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex as they may relate to the various States' internal businesses.

The 14th Amendment, alleged to grant such power, is summarized as follows during the 39th Congress which framed the Amendment:


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



JWK




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._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Dana7360]

Stop lying.

What is the lie?

JWK

Answer my question.

I asked you what special rights did the supreme court give homosexual people.

Seems you can't answer that.

Which is where the lie is.

There are no special rights given to gay people. The court just reaffirmed that gay people have the same right to a job as everyone else. Apparently you don't believe that. Too bad for you. You can't have your way.

You want to retain the special right to discriminate against homosexual people.

So tell me what special right did the Supreme Court give homosexual people?

The singular right approved of by the Court is a right to pursue court action if an employer rejects an employee based upon their sex. The only provision in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, and it has to do with voting.

This singular right approved of by the S.C. in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, violates the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and was intentionally embraced by the Court to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action.

Why do you have a problem with people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

JWK

The 14th Amendment makes everything you posted worthless and meaningless.

What you posted is worthless. The supreme court says so.

You lost. Loser. No amount of garbage about the word sex not being in some sentence is going to validate your lies. No amount of garbage about contracts is going to validate your lies. You really should just give up because you're making a fool of yourself. And you're giving me and those like me the joy of seeing you come unglued about it. It's funny.

The truth is you lost. The Supreme Court ruled. Employers have to follow the law or will be sued.

Sucks for you and homophobes in our nation. You can't discriminate against homosexuals anymore.

Deal with it.

Meanwhile I'm having a fantastic time seeing you losers lie, whine and throw hissy fits. It's very funny.

Loser.

So, you can't defend the ruling as a matter of law. And this tells me you are not a friend of the rule of law and that you embrace the rule of man or mob-rule.

JWK

Take it to the Supreme Court. See what they have to say.

Loser.

I can defend that law with our constitution and our civil rights law.

The are discriminating based on sex. They are saying the person is
the wrong sex to be in a relationship. That is sexual discrimination and very illegal.

The original case was a man signed up on a gay baseball team. His employer fired him for it.

Do you think he should have been fired for signing up for a gay baseball team to do sports away from work on his own time?

The civil rights law protects people against sexual discrimination.

Discriminating someone because they are gay is sex discrimination. Just because some people say they love someone of the wrong sex.

The Supreme Court, constitution and law agrees with me. Not you and your stupid argument that doesn't apply.

You can keep arguing it and not answer my original question all you want. I'm done with you. You're just no match for me, the Supreme Court, our constitution and our equal rights laws.

Reply all you want. I won't read it or reply to it. You're just too much of a loser and too stupid to waste my time.

Loser.

 

[johnwk]

I can defend that law with our constitution . . .

We are talking about a court ruling, not a law.

JWK


"[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness" Justice Clarence Thomas Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)

 

[Synthaholic]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

No more than Rightwing useful idiots.

 

[johnwk]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

No more than Rightwing useful idiots.

The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is similar to the unconstitutional American’s with Disabilities Act … both are at odds with the text of our Constitution and legislative intent, and both ought to be labeled A Lawyers’ full employment Act.

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

 

[Synthaholic]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

No more than Rightwing useful idiots.

The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is similar to the unconstitutional American’s with Disabilities Act … both are at odds with the text of our Constitution and legislative intent, and both ought to be labeled A Lawyers’ full employment Act.

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

People with disabilities have rights, too. But keep whining as yet another progressive issue becomes the law of the land.

 

[johnwk]

Translation: all men are created equal

Not by the latest supreme court decision. Sexual deviants now have singular rights!

No more than Rightwing useful idiots.

The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is similar to the unconstitutional American’s with Disabilities Act … both are at odds with the text of our Constitution and legislative intent, and both ought to be labeled A Lawyers’ full employment Act.

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

People with disabilities have rights, too. But keep whining as yet another progressive issue becomes the law of the land.

The court opinion is not the law of the land. Only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are within the meaning of the "law of the land".

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

JWK

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[johnwk]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday that he's "OK" with the Supreme Court's decision.
"That's the ruling of the court. I accept it.”

And in regard to the majority opinion
Sen. Ted Cruz stated:


“This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate,” he said. “Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.” LINK

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

From the the dissenting opinion:


Today, many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves. But the authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is .

• The Court itself recognizes this:*

“The place to make new legislation . . . lies in Congress. When it comes to statutory interpretation, our role is limited to applying the law’s demands as faithfully as we can in the cases that come before us.” Ante , at 31.

• It is easy to utter such words. If only the Court would live by them.*
• I respectfully dissent.* ____ Justice Alito

We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:


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


JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47