Yup, off we go, with SCOTUS blessing... Soon...
~Easy
Posted on 06/16/2020 10:20:54 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever
In a shocking U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the axis of evil—that is, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. 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. As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin,” now prohibits employers from firing employees who self-identify as homosexual or as the sex they are not and never can be.
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisfamily.org ...
Good thoughts. So you believe broadcast media influences judges to turn left, but never right? Are they that befreft of principle?
Regarding “subjectively constituted conditions,” 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, 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. (Checking laws against enumerated powers should be a constitutionally enumerated requirement for the Supreme Court since we know that Congress cannot be trusted to police itself, and we can't always trust the Oval Office to police Congress either.)
"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.
That being noted, with the exception of religion-related protections in that law, 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 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].”
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 misguided Justice Gorsuch’s institutionally proper sophistry concerning sex, seemingly an attempt to force today’s politically correct meanings of the word “sex” into CRA '64, Gorsuch should have reviewed the history of the 19th Amendment to avoid the wrong conclusion instead of not seeing the forest for the trees like he did imo.
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.
The Supreme Court thus arguably established a precedent for recognizing only the biological male and female sexes under the Constitution imo, this precedent effectively becoming a part of the Constitution when the states ratified the 19th Amendment imo.
“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.
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.
Patriots will certainly take advantage of the golden opportunity to begin the process of reversing the Court’s 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.
SERIOUSLY?? A LESBIAN MINISTER in a PROTESTANT “church”?? I am SHOCKED....NOT! They ALL seem to be Lesbian or GAY!
I do not agree they have any first amendment rights beyond speaking their own personal thoughts. They certainly don't have any rights to interfere with Americans communicating with other Americans through the existing communications infrastructure, and they should be stomped out of existence if they don't start behaving like a telephone company.
Simple rule here. Either carry all, or carry none. Force them to comply, or burn them down.
This will get us killed if we don't stop it. You may be unable to see the danger, but i've studied quite a bit of history, and right now we are the Jews in 1930s Germany.
Wake up.
Not at all, they just don't have our principles. They are firm believers in "might makes right." To not take advantage of their power is a sin in their minds.
Define 'them'. Precisely enough that I can know exactly which organizations qualify without having to ask you.
I need to know who to torch.
Oh, and how much are you going to pay their shareholders to compensate them for seizing their property?
Even libertarians know the techs aren't common carriers.
Whatever I am I try to deal with reality.
Yup, off we go, with SCOTUS blessing... Soon...
~Easy
I think it's adequately defined by the usage of the word "carry". From past conversations you know i'm referring to "carrying traffic."
"Them" are those who carry traffic, but who are refusing to carry all traffic.
Oh, and how much are you going to pay their shareholders to compensate them for seizing their property?
How much did the slaveowners get? We'll pay them the same amount.
You carry massive amounts of communications, you are a defacto "carrier." The fact that laws have been manipulated to let them get away with this bullsh*t does not impress me at all.
Our goal should be to force them into the category of "carrier" or force them out of business. Anything else will increase the probability of our destruction.
I’m at the point that I believe God is shining a very bright on everyone, doing everything. So it’s in the glaring wide open for ALL to see and no one can hide anything anymore. I think time is about up and He is cleaning up loose ends before His wrath falls.
ZeroHedge and The Federalist have apparently racist comments on their sites and they don't moderate them.
Advertisers don't want to be associated with those comments or have their ads placed on such sites.
Google says "You can say whatever you want but we won't place our advertisers' ads on your sites if you don't clean them up."
If companies wanted their ads to run on those sites I assure you Google would do it.
Is it time for the government to force companies to run ads on every site?
Is Crate & Barrel censoring ZeroHedge if they don't want their ads on a site with racist comments?
This is a made up excuse to justify their own censorship. I can't recall how many sites i've visited in my life and never looked at the comments. I think most people do not bother reading the comments.
Some websites believe in Free Speech, not "regulated speech", and if they were to censor their comments, they would be denying their own libertarian principles.
Google is demanding people adhere to Google's beliefs, not their own.
If companies wanted their ads to run on those sites I assure you Google would do it.
This is a fun game. Someone posts a racist message on a website, Google shuts it down. But wait! Is this draconian censorship tactic going to be applied fairly and evenly to everyone? Are they going to call out ANTIFA for promoting violence or BLM saying racist things?
Are they going to change the definition of what constitutes "Hate Speech" so that if you quote the bible about queers, you've committed an act of "hate" speech?
You are playing with Nazi fire and you don't even know it.
You keep confusing ideology with a much more powerful force, economics.
This is about keeping advertisers comfortable and money-spending users on the sites.
Politics is about the 10th thing on the list.
Well, he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but I was hoping he would be an originalist-even though I was skeptical. This is legislating from the bench. This civil rights act was not written to mean anything other than distinguishing male or female-nothing to do with sexual orientation.
The remedy is for Congress to pass legislation stating that definition and intent, but they won’t do it. Getting sick and tired of the courts mandating crap that couldn’t possibly get passed in a legislature.
Commies wanted to destroy the family and this was one part of their plan to destroy American culture, so score another one for the Commie/Radicals.
No it isn't. They are seeking out "racist" commentary so that they can ban sites they don't like. Something you may not grasp is that when you get to a certain level of money, you really don't care about more money. There are only so many yachts, helicopters and estates that you can use, and once you've got all you want to get those, the next thing the uber wealthy desire is social approval from their peers.
Do you think Jewelry and Paintings are really worth the ridiculous sums of money they pay for them nowadays? The demonstrated ability to pay so much money is the prize, not the object itself.
And while we're at it, the 3% of the population that consists of young black males commit approximately 40% of the crime nationally. This isn't an opinion, it's verifiable fact, but if you point this out, is this "racist"?
Are ugly unpleasant truths "racist" if they say things people don't like? Is "race" a forbidden subject? Is it something that no one is aloud to talk about?
Transgenders have about a 40% suicide rate. Is it a "hate crime" to talk about this?
And then the goal posts are going to move again. Anything the left doesn't like will be construed as "racist" or "hate speech."
About damn time...
If these were closely held privately owned companies you might have a point.
Trust me, the investors in these companies want profits, and if they don't think that's what the management is focused on the management will be gone.
The evidence out there does not seem to support this assertion. In company after company we are seeing "woke" nonsense. How much profit did Target make declaring that all their restrooms would be available to mentally ill f@ggots in dresses?
A lot of share holders are so well off they too are getting on the "woke" bandwagon. I've seen so many examples of them promoting "social justice" at the expense of the bottom line, I no longer believe profit is their primary motivation.
The stuff going on now is mass hysteria, and following the same pattern that led to the marginalization of Jews in 1930s Germany.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.