There was a major Supreme Court ruling on June 15 that catered to the LGBT movement. It took the power away from private businesses to make decisions about whom to employ. Reuters reported:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights and a defeat for President Donald Trump’s administration by ruling that a longstanding federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees.
The landmark 6-3 ruling represented the biggest moment for LGBT rights in the United States since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Two conservative justices joined the court’s four liberals in the decision: Neil Gorsuch, a 2017 Trump appointee who wrote the ruling, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
The justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin and religion.
This ruling may not seem important since gays and transgenders are such a small percentage of the population, about 2%. But this ruling can cause major problems, for instance for religious groups who might end up being forced to allow a male-to-female sex-changer employee to use a ladies’ bathroom. This could happen if the employee was hired as a man but changed into a woman while employed. Watch for this to happen somewhere with this Supreme Court ruling.
Worse, this ruling shows yet again that the Court did something that it should not be doing. In this decision the Court ended up “making law”, or rather going back to 1964 to give new teeth and new power to an existing law. This is abhorrent. The Court is not supposed to do this. It is supposed to ‘interpret’ laws, not update laws.
The ruling was 6 to 3 to the liberal side. Yet with an alleged 5 to 4 ‘conservative majority’ on the Court, how did this happen?
Answer: Because the Court is not conservative. We have seen liberal rulings over and over by “conservative” Republican-appointed justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts.
We understand Roberts. He was appointed by globalist/liberal president George W. Bush. Roberts is the one who sided with Obamacare in 2012 when he could have got rid of it. Roberts is not a conservative. He is a “swing” justice, like Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican president Ronald Reagan and who tipped the 2015 gay marriage vote to the left.
Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump, has voted liberal on minor cases since he ascended to the Court in Autumn 2018, but not on major cases.
Gorsuch is the problem. He has voted liberal on many minor cases and now on this major LGBT case. Gorsuch was nominated by president Trump with much fanfare.
So what happened? Well, Trump is not a legal scholar. He takes the word of his advisors. And they told him that Gorsuch was a “Constitutionalist” and so Trump liked that.
But being a “Constitutionalist” does not make Gorsuch a “conservative”. And we have proof of that with the LGBT ruling.
President Trump must not nominate any more “Constitutionalists”. He must appoint “conservatives” like justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Period. End of story.
Gorsuch’s vote would not be a problem if we saw Democrat-appointed justices applying the Constitution and voting according to that. But you may have noticed a pattern over the years. Republican-appointed justices often vote with the liberals on major cases by applying Constitutional principles, but Democrat-appointed justices NEVER vote with conservatives on major cases. The reason is simple: Democrat-appointed justices are leftists. They are not interested in the Constitution. They vote left on all major cases.
We conservatives need to balance this by appointing ‘conservatives’ not “Constitutionalists”.
Another major action on June 15 is yet another indicator that the Court is not conservative. USA Today reported:
The Supreme Court wasted little time Monday making clear its reluctance to wade back into the national battle over gun rights.
After refusing to rule on a challenge to New York City gun restrictions because they were rescinded while the case was pending, the court turned away all potential replacements that would have given its conservative justices a chance to strengthen the Second Amendment.
The justices had a long list of challenges to choose from, including several testing the threshold issue of whether guns can be carried in public nationwide, as they currently are in some 40 states. Other issues included bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and handgun sales.
By refusing to take a new case so quickly after declaring the New York City case moot, the justices denied gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association what they have been seeking – an opportunity to put state and local limits before an increasingly conservative court.
Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision not to hear a major New Jersey case testing the right to carry guns in public.
“In several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a ‘justifiable need’ or ‘good reason’ for doing so,” Thomas wrote. “One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this court’s review.”
OK, so once again we have this allegedly “conservative” Supreme Court kicking gun owners in the shins. This is very alarming, particularly at a time when Americans from coast to coast are buying guns at a rapid clip in order to possibly protect themselves from riots and looting.
We should have seen a strengthening and a verification of gun rights. Instead we got silence.
The case involved a New Jersey man who repairs ATM machines. He has been attacked when working in bad neighborhoods and wanted to carry a gun. But New Jersey’s strict laws don’t allow him to have a gun. And the Supreme Court let that stand. It is shameful.