OPINION: The ‘villain’ in Gay Workers Rights Case has Plenty to Say

The Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | June 17, 2020 | Bill Torpy

[Cecily]

He applauds U.S. Supreme Court LGBTQ ruling, but calls lead plaintiff untruthful

Sometimes bad court cases end up making good law. That’s exactly what happened in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits discriminating against LGBTQ employees, says Steven Teske, who is Clayton County Juvenile Court’s chief judge.

He’s also the “villain” in this proceeding.

In 2013, Teske fired Gerald Bostock, the lead plaintiff in the case that swayed two conservative justices to join the Supreme Court’s liberal wing in a 6-3 decision. Bostock, who was the coordinator of Clayton’s CASA (court appointed special advocates) program, had sued in 2016, alleging he was fired because he was gay. But his lawsuit was dismissed without being heard.

[Cecily]

So the basis of the original case was a lie. Good to know.

[irishjuggler]

Like Roe v. Wade.

[Rurudyne]

Homosexual acts should be illegal everywhere. Being a known homosexual should wreck a life. There are some things that should be discriminated against at every single turn.

[Lurkinanloomin]

It's now compulsory.

[Dr. Sivana]

Homosexual acts should be illegal everywhere.

Anti-sodomy laws were affirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 1987 (Bowers v. Hardwick). What was once illegal is now compulsory.

[Nateman]

My theory is Scalia was murdered and these back stabbing judges were told they could be next. After seeing all the riots the left stirred up for little gain there is no doubt the leftist scum of are in it for blood.

[Amendment10]

In stark contrast to the rights that the Founding States expressly protected when they amended the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect either politically correct LGBT “rights,” or the fictitious constitutional “right” to murder unborn children for that matter.

But happening right before our eyes, these phony constitutional rights are being scandalously legislated from the bench by institutionally indoctrinated, “conservative" justices like Neil Gorsuch.

From a related thread about the Court’s misguided decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, please consider the following.

"In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the axis of evil decided that in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the word “sex” includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”—both subjectively constituted conditions [!!! emphasis added]."

Regarding “subjectively constituted conditions” concerning the meaning of the word sex in Title VII of the constitutionally indefensible (imo) Civil Rights Act of 1964, please note that a previous generation of Supreme Court justices had condemned subjective interpretations of the Constitution.

• ”The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphases added]." —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

• "Beware of English-to-English translations of the Constitution!" —me

It’s probably easier for us deplorables to objectively interpret the Constitution than it is for justices since we never paid big bucks for our brains to be institutionally indoctrinated with politically correct interpretations of the Constitution like even the so-called conservative justices evidently did.

On the other hand, if Justice Gorsuch and his likewise misguided, liberal colleagues on the bench were regular readers of Free Republic, they might have reluctantly decided the case against Mr. Bostock as per the following explanation.

To begin with, if this were a better world, again, the first thing that the Supreme Court should check when examining any case related to a federal law is if the states had given Congress the express constitutional power to make the law in the first place.

• "10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

First checking federal laws against enumerated powers should be a constitutionally enumerated requirement for the Supreme Court since we know that the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress cannot be trusted to police itself, nor can we trust the Oval Office to police Congress.

That being noted, with the exception of religion-related protections in that law, again, probably most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA '64) and its titles are unconstitutional imo. This is because the only constitutionally express powers that the states have given to Congress to police INTRAstate race and sex-discrimination issues are limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 15th and 19th Amendments (19A).

• "15th Amendment:

  Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

  Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”

• "19th Amendment:

  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."

In fact, regardless of Gorsuch’s institutionally proper sophistry concerning sex, questionably an attempt to force today’s politically correct meanings of the word “sex” into CRA '64, and noting that I haven't found a referenced to 19A in the Bostock v. Clayton County opinion (correction welcome), Gorsuch should have reviewed the history of the 19th Amendment to avoid the wrong conclusion, instead not seeing the forest for the trees as a consequence of not doing so.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

More specifically, when the 19th century Supreme Court examined the 14th Amendment-related voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett, the Court did not suggest that Virginia Minor might consider claiming to be a man in order to be able to vote under the voting laws of her state, but decided the case against her.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

The Supreme Court thus arguably established a precedent for recognizing only the male and female biological sexes under the Constitution imo, this precedent effectively becoming a part of the Constitution when the states ratified 19A imo.

In fact, in stark contrast to Gorsuch’s wide interpretation of sex, Thomas Jefferson had smartly encouraged interpreting the Constitution narrowly in order to force the states to make a decision about possible new powers for Congress.

• "In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

• "To take a single step beyond the boundaries specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to definition." —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.

So rookie Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch has now helped to unconstitutionally expand the powers of the already unconstitutionally big federal government imo.

It remains that Congress did not have the express constitutional authority to make CRA '64 and its titles imo.

Patriots will certainly take advantage of their golden opportunity to begin the process of reversing the Court’s deplorable decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia when they send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government Democrats and RINOs home in November!

New patriot federal and state government leaders should not only promise to fully support PDJT's already excellent work for MAGA, but also need to promise to start impeachment and removal process for Constitution-ignoring justices.

[Mr. Blond]

So glad we have a conservative majority. /sarc

[NetAddicted]

Bookmarking, to reread.