Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

The Soap Box
1

.
As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations ___ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind ___ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin

1 Like
5

Gorsuch wrote “Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences."

Indeed, a major problem with Gorsuch’s ruling is its unexpected consequences.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , like the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act , will most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers.

See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV

Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …

And especially see:

The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act

“The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia ought to be referred to as The Lawyers New Full Employment Act.

JWK

9

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal and human rights for all Americans. It is about defending our Constitution, a system of government by reason and choice of the people, and not being subject to the whims and fancies of our public servants.

Keep in mind our Constitution does provide for change, but only by its amendment process in which the people participate. To allow our public servants to ignore our constitution, even if the breach appears to be just, opens the door to our Constitution being a dead letter and the whims and fancies of those in power becomes the rule of law.

We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:

“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

13

Although, it will be hard for the globalist dupes to concentrate long enough to read and comprehend your point.

1 Like
14

When Justice Gorsuch added to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace, he violated two specific provisions of our Constitution!

Take a look at our Constitution [see Article 6] which actually commands judges and Justices to support “this Constitution.” Our Constitution also recognizes and commands [see Amendment 7] an adherence to “the rules of the common law”. In fact, these two provisions outline the primary function of our Supreme Court Justices which can be summarized as follows:

  1. Abide by the text of the Constitution

  2. Abide by the documented “legislative intent” of the Constitution which gives context to its text.

The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.

In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”

It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce it, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).

Those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and the rules of English Common Law, ought to remember what is stated in American Jurisprudence:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, but are tied to adhering to our Constitution’s legislative intent.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

18

Gorsuch’s own words confirm he has meddled in the “legislative process”!

In Gorsuch’s written opinion we find:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, – (2019) (slip op., at 6–7).”

“With this in mind, our task is clear. We must determine the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s command that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). To do so, we orient ourselves to the time of the statute’s adoption, here 1964, and begin by examining the key statutory terms in turn before assessing their impact on the cases at hand and then confirming our work against this Court’s precedents.”

Gorsuch is absolutely correct in pointing out the Court “… normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” And the explanation Gorsuch gives for doing so is only too obvious to create any contention. But every now and then a word or term used in legislation may be construed in a manner that if applied to the statute, would pervert the evil intended to be addressed by the legislation at the time of its adoption, and it would allow judicial decisions which neither the legislature or public at large would have embraced at the time of the legislation’s adoption. In other words, it would allow our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.

So, the real question to be answered is, did the legislature, when passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intend to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct? To this, the obvious answer is a resounding no!

Let us not forget the fundamental principle requiring the above question to be answered is emphasized by our very own Supreme Court. In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which the Court confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

Gorsuch’s’ novel approach, parsing the meaning of “sex” within the statute in a manner which perverts the narrow evil being addressed at the time of the legislation’s adoption, opens the door for judges to “add to, remodel, update, or detract” from the original evil being addressed, and allows “amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.” And this denies “the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

19

.


.
And please tell us, how does reading the bill “away from the fog of the controversy” change the dishonesty of passing a bill, the contents of which is kept secret, until it is passed?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

20

I could hardly agree that Congress passing a law, and that law being tested in the courts, is evidence of being subjected to “the whims and fancies” of the ruling class

Also, does it ever give you pause that you seem to always be coming down against the expansion of liberty and the protection of people?

21

Expansion of liberty and the protection of people?

There is no expansion of liberty when people are not free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. Likewise, there is no protection of the people when an identifiable group is given special protection, which is enforced by the muscle of government.

In any event, I explained my position in the OP, and it is very disturbing when those on our Supreme Court, like Gorsuch, use the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, and apply it to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

22

I can only imagine the fevered mind that sees protection from discrimination as somehow oppressive

23

Perhaps that is because your imagination refuses to embrace a self-evident truth . . . the act of discrimination, is nothing more than exercising a freedom of choice.

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

1 Like
24

Do you believe there are any forms of discrimination that should be against the law?

27

My version of America is to leave people free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations . . .which is one of the most basic and fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.

Additionally, I am a devoted supporter of abiding by the text our federal constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

30

Perhaps I misunderstood, and if so I apologize.

But isn’t it true that, for example, you think that the Equal Rights Act is bad law and unconstitutional?

31

The “Equal Rights Act” is legislation not authorized by the text of our Constitution, or the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.
JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

32

Right. And this stance amounts to government sanction of bigotry and prejudice. That is not a personal attack on you, it is a statement if fact

34

I simply do not follow your assertion regarding what I POSTED , “…amounts to government sanction of bigotry and prejudice.”

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

35

You don’t support the equal rights amendment: you say it’s not supported by law, and is unconstitutional. I say the equal rights amendment has protected our fellow citizens from bigotry and discrimination.

Therefore, I feel that your stance supports government sanctioned bigotry and discrimination

36

I’m still trying to figure out how a proposed amendment isn’t authorized legislation. Not sure why my previous post got deleted either.

37

I say “it’s not supported by law” which is why it’s an amendment. Isn’t that literally the point of adding an amendment? Were the bill of rights already supported by law before being added?

To “unconstitutional” I say how can an amendment be unconstitutional?