Conservative Legal Circles Buzz With Rumor that Justice Gorsuch Will Defect to the Liberals and Rule That Transgenders Are Women For Title VII

Ace of Spades HQ ^ | February 21, 2020 | Ace

[rollo tomasi]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act along with the added Titles/Amendments is an abomination of a free society and in essence, gives the Federal government authoritarian powers over free enterprise and supersedes First Amendment protections. That said, this rumor of Gorsuch is just stoking FUD into the mix.

[higgmeister]

So President Johnson and the Democratic-controlled 88th Congress didn’t have the express constitutional power to make probably most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles imo.

Please don't be misleading. In the final Senate version of the bill, voted on by the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 63% of Democrats.

[Amendment10]

"Please don't be misleading. In the final Senate version of the bill, voted on by the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 63% of Democrats."

Thanks for that insight.

But remember that Republicans became extinct a long time ago. You must be talking about post-17th Amendment ratification RINOs.

[higgmeister]

Do you even know who Everett Dirksen was?

[Amendment10]

"Do you even know who Everett Dirksen was?"

Nope. But I just read a paragraph or two about him. Did you want to make a point about him?

[higgmeister]

Since you don't know, he was a Conservative Republican and the Senate Minority Leader back then.   He almost single handedly pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by breaking the Southern Democrat filibuster.   The Democrats couldn't break the filibuster because it was their own party doing it.   Your comment that the Republican party died years ago is not true at all.   It always has been and still is "The Party of Lincoln."

At that cloture vote, Dirksen said: "Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment: 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."[38]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22616500-the-honorable-mr-marigold

Senator Dirksen was the nobel statesman that Senators were expected to be before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified.

Just so you will not make assumptions, my paternal Great Grandfather mustered out of Company C of the 29th Alabama Infantry Regiment as a brevet Captain.   My maternal Great Great Grandfather served in Company F of the 29th Alabama Infantry Regiment.   So, I'm not a damn Yankee.

I saw Black men treated like "Darkies" by "Brother Dave Levinson" on his farm and it was a disgrace to humanity.   "Brother Dave" sent his "boys" over to our place to help Dad bring in our hay in 1960 when it was about to rain.   Such a neighborly thing to do, but I still have the memory etched in my head of those poor tired sad men in tattered rags lined up as if they were on a chain gang.   Separate but equal?   I remember when our bus broke down they sent the old "colored bus" to pick us up for school.   How did the black kids get to school?   I'm just at that age when I can remember a little of how it was back then.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Fascinating graph. One wonders what methodology quantifies the conservatism/“liberalism” of SCOTUS justices - but the “Source Data” link didn’t help much.

I note the obvious tendency of nearly all justices to get more “liberal” over time. Interesting that Scalia was, in this rating, less conservative than Thomas, and he was the most conservative SCOTUS justice for only one term.

Interesting that post-WWII nadir in the conservatism of the median justice was in 1966, and close on its heels was the median in 1964 - the latter being the year of the unanimous - and according to Antonin Scalia scandalous - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.

Scalia pointed out that the reason for the entire Bill of Rights was to reassure the doubters that no rights were compromised by the Constitution. As such the Bill of Rights was crafted not to change the right to compensation for libel. And therefore, Justice Brennan’s claim in Sullivan that ". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” is a fig leaf for restrictions on libel suits being made up by the Warren Court.

I note that your graph stops at the end of ’17 . . .

[RightCenter]

Nanomachines, obviously

[RightCenter]

Nanomachines, obviously

[higgmeister]

Nanomachines, obviously

Of course, like Captain Jack became immortal with nanotech in an alien medical pod. Or when the metal cylinder landed in World War II-era London, releasing the alien nanobots which transformed every human they came into contact with into gas mask-wearing zombies, like the first human they encountered, a gas mask-wearing child.

I love science fiction. I've read almost every book Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Andre Norton, Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein wrote but I believe it can only provide us with glimpses of futuristic trends not provide proof that anything is certain to happen in the future.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Is there an updated version of that graph??

I get nothing from the link presented . . .

[Bratch]

Everything I can find still lists Justice Ginsberg as being on the bench.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Well, fine - because no SCOTUS decisions reflect anyone else in that seat.

It’ll be until summer before Barrett (if confirmed) has any voting record at all on SCOTUS.