Another Win for the Kagan Court: She wins over Gorsuch and Roberts to rewrite the Civil Rights Act.

Congratulations to Chief Justice Elena Kagan on her big win Monday at the Supreme Court on gay and transgender rights in Bostock v. Clayton County. Ok, she isn’t the Chief, but she might as well be as her redefining of Antonin Scalia’s jurisprudence prevailed in a startling 6-3 ruling that included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Kagan didn’t write the majority opinion, but her views are all over Justice Gorsuch's opinion that essentially rewrites Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” But in oral argument, Justice Kagan redefined “sex” in Title VII to mean more than the binary choice of a man or woman. Justice Gorsuch bought the argument, and in the process he usurps Congress and distorts the textualist school of jurisprudence that he claims to follow.

There is no evidence that Congress or the public in 1964 understood gender identity and sexual orientation to be the same as biological sex. Mores have changed for the better, and Congress would have added gender and sexual orientation to the law sooner rather than later. But all 10 appellate courts that considered whether “sex” covered gender identity and sexual orientation before 2017 held that it did not.

The Court has now rewritten the law itself. While Justice Gorsuch concedes that “homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” he says “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

But animus toward gays or transgender people isn’t based on their biological sex. People hostile to gays aren’t necessarily sexual chauvinists.

"That law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” But in oral argument, Justice Kagan redefined “sex” in Title VII to mean more than the binary choice of a man or woman. Justice Gorsuch bought the argument, and in the process he usurps Congress and distorts the textualist school of jurisprudence that he claims to follow."

Blah, blah, more blah.

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriots, we will have a golden opportunity to get rid of the activist, institutionally indoctrinated justices trampling the Constitution when we reelect PDJT by also electing a new patriot Congress that will not only promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA, but will also promise to impeach and remove Constitution-ignoring activist justices from the Supreme Court.

From a related thread…

First Amendment-related protections aside, regarding the otherwise mostly constitutionally indefensible (imo) Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA ’64) and its titles, please consider the following.

When the 19th century Supreme Court examined the 14th Amendment-related voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett, the Court did not suggest that Virgina Minor claim to be a man under the voting laws of her state in order to vote, but decided the case against her.

The Supreme Court thus 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.
"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]."
”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.

Also regarding CRA '64, consider that the 15th Amendment likewise limits any race protection laws that Congress makes to voting rights issues.

"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].”

Constitutional lawmakers maybe should have included language in the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments to deal with discrimination and segregation.

On the other hand, our generation is certainly an eyewitness to how badly all three branches of the post-17th Amendment ratification, unconstitutionally big federal government can twist the original intent of constitutional lawmakers regardless how carefully amendments are written.

Here’s the “conservatives” who sided with the liberals to say LGBTXYZ is not either man or woman, but what ever in the hell they say they are, irregardless of what’s between their legs and what common sense and DNA says.

1. John Roberts. His sister is a lesbian who was at his confirmation hearings. Interviewed she said she was so happy for her brother. She tells the interviewer that he had assured her if same-sex “marriage” ever came before the court he was certain it would pass.

2. Neil Gorsuch. During his senate conformation hearing homosexual who used to to clerk for him said he was a fine man who attended his “wedding” and also sent a personal congratulations letter to him wishing him all the happiness in his the world, “marriage”.

Both are social liberals and will prove it continually in the next 20 to 30 years.

>> 1. John Roberts. His sister is a lesbian who was at his confirmation hearings. Interviewed she said she was so happy for her brother. She tells the interviewer that he had assured her if same-sex “marriage” ever came before the court he was certain it would pass.
2. Neil Gorsuch. During his senate conformation hearing homosexual who used to to clerk for him said he was a fine man who attended his “wedding” and also sent a personal congratulations letter to him wishing him all the happiness in his the world, “marriage”.

Both are social liberals and will prove it continually in the next 20 to 30 years <<

Sadly, I agree.

So where's all the loudmouth FReepers who continuously lectured us during the confirmation hearings "Gosh darn, you don't get it. His PERSONAL VIEWS and PRIVATE LIFE don't matter. They are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't want a 'conservative' judge. I want an PROVEN ORIGINALIST judge whose JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY is to hand down the decisions in line with the founders intent... blah blah blah..."

Sure haven't seen the folks who screamed ORIGINALIST ORIGINALIST ORIGINALIST at the top of their lungs around these threads, whenever their beloved "ORIGINALIST" judge turns traitor.

We've been screwed by that mindset since at least the 1960s and Nixon era (Nixon pledged he would appoint ONLY "strict constructionist" judges).

I've had it up to here with their "originalist" judges. They are to the federal courts what "fiscal conservatives" are to legislatures.

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.