Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Government

Alito Warns SCOTUS Decision Is a Threat to Religious Liberty

2020-06-17

[National Review] The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6—3 decision today — with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority — that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment also outlaws such discrimination on the basis of transgender identity and sexual orientation.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito writes:

Politco - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the new ruling, arguing that Gorsuch's claimed humility about simply interpreting the law's language was belied by the huge gulf between what lawmakers intended and what the court held.

Posted by:Besoeker

#10 I recently switched from Chrome to Brave, and from Google to DuckDuckGo, and I've never been happier. Both are working great.

Posted by: Vernal Hatrick 2020-06-17 14:32

#9 Interesting that when Obamacare got in front of the SCOTUS the same fuzziness was met with ‘back to congress’. If the 1965 law meant sexual orientation it could have been easily amended by Congress during the last 55 years or tomorrow.

Posted by: Airandee 2020-06-17 14:30

#8 People should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want to in their private businesses.

Just like Google banning ads on The Federalist and Zerohedge. When I read that I thought it was a crummy thing for Google to do but, after all, it's their company and they can run it they way they want. Just like I have a right to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google's search engine. Just like I have a right to refuse to click on Google ads. Freedom is freedom - the same for everybody.

Posted by: Abu Uluque 2020-06-17 13:55

#7 Procopius2k, you are absolutely right in that sense. I didn't mean that they don't sit above and apart in a power sense. They absolutely are a part of the ruling elite. That was poorly stated, I suppose.

I meant that they are not able to view things from a purely objective viewpoint. They're a part of this country, and won't be able to stay out of the fray. I just want to urge people not to think of the court as an answer to all or most things. We have to win in culture before we win anywhere else.

Posted by: Vernal Hatrick 2020-06-17 13:36

#6 Theydo not stand apart and above from the country.

They do. They sit for life. To use their own term, de facto above removal. What it took to be a lawyer in 1800 and a lawyer in 2000 makes it a caste. You have to have the right credentials, approved by the right people, go to the right schools. It is an antithesis to a republic.

You can not in all honesty say that the court hasn't granted itself broad purview and powers in the last hundred years. How many times have they handed down a decision that reads - go follow Article V of the Constitution? There was a reason the founders demanded a super majority to alter the Constitution and it has been 27 times.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-06-17 13:28

#5 I wonder if a man can become a nun nowadays ?

Posted by: Dron66046 2020-06-17 12:46

#4 Too bad for women's sports.

Posted by: Bobby 2020-06-17 12:32

#3 It's also worth noting that proponents of liberty in the 60s knew that the Civil Rights Act would lead to unjust outcomes, but were silenced by the waves of public outcry and the need to "do something". The Act itself is, I believe, in core conflict with the Constitution. Every major religion believes in discrimination against others based on religion and sex, among other things. And forbidding discrimination based on national origin is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen put into major legislation, and hampers the operation of the government on every level. It looked good, but unintended consequences always come back to bite us. I've said it before, and I'll repeat. The Supreme Court is not here to save us from our own stupid decisions as a society. They do not stand apart and above from the country. We can't rely on them to see what nobody else does, and intervene, even if we replace Ginsberg and get Thomas to retire voluntarily when Trump almost inevitably wins a second term.

Posted by: Vernal Hatrick 2020-06-17 10:11

#2 I disagree. The law states that sex is what is important, including anything the relates to or is dependent on sex. That is in the law. I know that this is not what people here wanted, but the Court actually gives a solid textual argument for their decision, if you read the text of their decision. It is based on the exact same arguments that have banned discrimination against the pregnant and banned sexual harassment, both of which happened decades ago.

Do I think was a good or bad decision? I'm think this was a good decision because it followed the text of the law, but a bad one because it will have a lot of bad consequences. This wasn't a "betrayal". This was forcing people to confront the law that was written, which was a bad law. People should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want to in their private businesses. But if we forbid it on the basis of sex and sex-involved decisions, then yes, sexual orientation and gender identity will logically be covered based on a text-only decision.

I personally don't care what the writers of the law intended. I just care what the law says. If the law is stupid, it should be changed, or repealed entirely. Interpreting the minds of the dead is a fool's errand.

Posted by: Vernal Hatrick 2020-06-17 10:04

#1 Not a good day for the Little Sisters or the Republic. Yes, feel free to credit Roberts with another betrayal.

Posted by: Besoeker 2020-06-17 08:50

00:00