The Recent SCOTUS Decision

From The Conservative Review:

Taken in totality, the “conservative” legal movement, which has promoted the idea of “appointing better judges” rather than fighting the entire concept of judicial supremacism, has failed miserably. This was its Waterloo. Here is a brief summary of four very important decisions and orders issued by the court today:

• The justices denied certiorari to gun rights groups in 10 gun cases where states have denied citizens the right to carry arms under any circumstance. Justice Thomas dissented in the denial of cert in the New Jersey right to carry case and was joined by Justice Kavanagh. It takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and it’s not clear which of the others would also have agreed but didn’t sign on to the dissent. Despite the plain meaning of the Constitution, 10 years after Heller, and with circuit splits, the court refuses to act.
• In U.S. v. California et al., the Supreme Court denied the petition from the Department of Justice to overturn a Ninth Circuit ruling upholding California’s sanctuary law. California prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration agents. Only Thomas and Alito would have granted the appeal.
• In what has become a growing trend of SCOTUS interference with the few remaining capital punishment cases, the justices remanded a Texas capital case because they believe the accused did not have sufficient counsel. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
• In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Right act, which passed in 1964 before anyone could fathom transgenderism, applies to transgenderism and sexual orientation.

Taken together, these decisions show the court believes there is an inalienable right to transgenderism and illegal immigration but not to the Second Amendment. The court believes it can tamper with every state criminal and capital conviction on ever-evolving novel grounds, but it somehow believes a state can criminalize foundational federal immigration powers. A world upside down, and we only have one consistent originalist on the court in Clarence Thomas, with Justice Alito a step or two behind him.

By far, the most devastatingly consequential case of the day was the transgender “discrimination” case – Bostock v. Clayton County. Writing for the majority, Gorsuch claims that when the statute uses the term “sex,” it can apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, concluded Gorsuch. He was joined by the four Democrat appointees, as well as Chief Justice Roberts.
Well, it’s good to know that gender and sex are indeed not separate things, as the rainbow jihad lobby has indicated for so many years! But either way this ruling is absurd beyond belief. (Read more.)

Also from Daniel Horowitz:

 When Anthony Kennedy discovered a right to force states to redefine marriage in the 2015 Obergefell case, he promised that religious liberty would remain untouched. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” wrote the former justice for the majority at the time.

Yeah, right.

Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.

Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.

Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court. (Read more.)

From The Federalist:

This decision also cements public schools’ status as social enforcers and subsidizers of far-left politics, as they can have no potential legal defense against a teacher switching genders in front of students, putting boys in girls’ locker rooms and sports, or teaching preschoolers that Heather can have two or even three mommies. Queer theory is now reigning U.S. employment law. This means it must also dominate all institutions of higher education that are not explicitly religious, both public and private.

Religious schools and homeschooling now offer the only potential safe haven to parents who don’t want their children indoctrinated to believe it’s awesome to amputate healthy penises and breasts. Even those options are under threat, and it will take oodles of litigation to work out the details.

Rod Dreher has more on this: “John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented one of the losing plaintiffs in one of the SCOTUS cases, …points out that religious liberty is still very much in play, and will be at issue in future cases. But what SCOTUS has done today is to redefine ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.’ Because of that, he said, ‘there is no end in sight to that kind of litigation.'”

This is litigation LGBT activists are very well-prepared, motivated, and well-financed to pursue. Given Republican politicians’ history of cravenly sacrificing Americans’ constitutional rights to gaslighting from identity politics agitators who don’t vote for Republicans, most notably when Vice President Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, we’d all better redirect any donation from Republican campaigns to legal protection like ADF and The Becket Fund. (Read more.)

From The American Thinker:

Transgenderism is a form of body dysmorphic disorder, just as surely as anorexia is. The current approach is comparable to taking a girl presenting with anorexia and saying that, because of politics, she should go on a diet and get stomach-stapling surgery.

I have nothing but pity for those unhappy people who feel as if they're in an alien body. I also suspect that the preponderance of men with this problem is because the left has successfully removed men from American families, causing boys to over-identify with their mothers.

Whatever the reason for the uptick in transgenderism, it's not about sex. It's about a specific mental illness. To give it protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 places an untenable burden on American businesses (and, inevitably, on the American military). We need a Republican Congress to revisit the 1964 Civil Rights Act and claw back the Supreme Court's overreach. (Read more.)

From Life Site:

 Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women). Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway addressed the ruling a bit more directly on Fox News, praising Alito’s dissenting opinion and declaring that “it’s very important though to stick to a statute or a law as it is written when that is before the United States Supreme Court. If people want to change the law, they should go to the Congress.” (Read more.)

Share