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

[johnwk]

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

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

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz spent yesterday fighting with Hellboy on Twitter, so let’s not take him seriously.

 

[johnwk]

Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz spent yesterday fighting with Hellboy on Twitter, so let’s not take him seriously.

Not take Cruz seriously? The fact is, he is spot on that the majority opinion has acted as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.” LINK

In fact, Senator Cruz's remark is confirmed by Justice Kavanaugh, who wrote a dissenting opinion:


"For several decades, Congress has considered numerous bills to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But as noted above, although Congress has come close, it has not yet shouldered a bill over the legislative finish line.

In the face of the unsuccessful legislative efforts (so far) to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, judges may not rewrite the law simply because of their own policy views. Judges may not update the law merely because they think that Congress does not have the votes or the fortitude. Judges may not predictively amend the law just because they believe that Congress is likely to do it soon anyway.

If judges could rewrite laws based on their own policy views, or based on their own assessments of likely future legislative action, the critical distinction between legislative authority and judicial authority that undergirds the Constitution’s separation of powers would collapse, thereby threatening the impartial rule of law and individual liberty. As James Madison stated: “Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul, for the judge would then be the legislator.” The Federalist No. 47, at 326 (citing Montesquieu). If judges could, for example, rewrite or update securities laws or healthcare laws or gun laws or environmental laws simply based on their own policy views, the Judiciary would become a democratically illegitimate super-legislature—unelected, and hijacking the important policy decisions reserved by the Constitution to the people’s elected representatives."


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]

Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is a joke. No one takes him seriously. He’s the Marco Rubio of Sarah Palins.

 

[22lcidw]

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

Stop lying.

Applying rights to everyone equally is constitutional.

For heaven's sake read the constitution and all of the amendments. Pay very close attention to the 14th.

What special right is the court giving them?

Do you mean that having the right to not be fired from your job not because of poor job performance or anything to do with your job but because of who you are as a person is a special right?

So you're saying that your employer can fire you because of who you love? Keep in mind even heterosexual people can be fired for marrying someone or loving someone of the opposite sex if you get your way.

I would love to see some employers fire people for being heterosexual. Maybe you people will finally understand what you are demanding to be able to keep doing.

What you are demanding is special rights for you and employers that others don't have. To discriminate against someone.

So if anyone here is demanding and throwing a hissy fit for not getting their way is YOU.

Guess what?

You don't matter.

No one cares what you want or think much less our Supreme Court.

Deal with it.

There is nothing in the constitution that tells us to pay for another.

 

[johnwk]

There is nothing in the constitution that tells us to pay for another.

The big problem is, this unconstitutional ruling, like the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act, will most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers.

See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV

Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …

And especially see:

The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act



“The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”


The above is why I call the supreme court’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , the new full employment act for lawyers.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is a joke. No one takes him seriously. He’s the Marco Rubio of Sarah Palins.

So, all you have is attacking the messenger and not the message.



JWK

John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path our democrat socialist/communist leadership has chosen to take, supported by a Fifth Column media and Yellow Journalists.

 

[Jets]

Gorsuch began by explaining that the Supreme Court generally interprets a law by looking at how the public would have understood the law when it was passed — “the ordinary public meaning” of the law. Here, he reasoned, the word “sex” means either male or female. Under the plain terms of Title VII, then, an employer violates Title VII “when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex,” even if “other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision” and even if “the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group.” All that matters, Gorsuch stressed, is whether “changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer.” As an example, Gorsuch offered the case of an employer with two employees who are both attracted to men and are, for all intents and purposes, identical, but one is male and one is female. If the employer fires the male employee only because he is attracted to men, while keeping the female employee, Gorsuch wrote, the employer has violated Title VII.

Opinion analysis: Federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees (Updated) - SCOTUSblog

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.” Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a

www.scotusblog.com

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

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.

Is that how you quit being white, you just said "I'm not white anymore?"
Asclepias Dolezal