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

[meaner gene]

Fuk you, you picked him


Dont like him, replace him with Garland

No, fuck you, you evil thing! We've had our fill of you fascists and right about now a murderous civil war looks mighty inviting, I really have had it with democrats and treachery, and bad news for you fascist, I am joined in that by tens of millions who want every fucking one of you extirpated from the continent!

Holy shit. This never happened when Obama was president, and you probably claimed Obama was dividing the country back then.

Compared to Trump, Obama was Abraham Lincoln

 

[meaner gene]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

It didn't happen overnight. It all started with Lawrence V Texas USSC.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't see this as that big of a deal.

If you don't want a transvestite freak of nature working for you, find someone with equal or greater merit. God knows everyone of these freaks is repulsive to the eyes at least, and is a serious mental health problem. Give them the interview, and "lose" the application. By then you can find a new recruit, or decide you don't need the position filled.

Personally I think any business person is stupid for not hiring someone just because they're pillow biter. It's when the pillow biter is a flaming faggot and is likely to disgust other people in the business place, or is a bulldyke and likely to cause a hostile environment, that I can understand over looking their skills or abilities. The same with skin color. If someone is qualified, but clearly some sort of agitating moonbat, you shouldn't hire them.


.

 

[johnwk]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's 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

 

[rightwinger]

Roberts did not want to be known as the man who killed healthcare for tens of millions

He does not want to be known for punitive actions against immigrants.

He did not want to be known for destroying the right to work for gays.

It is his legacy. Conservatives can push him, but only so far.

I don't think Roberts is concerned with more than the courts standing in law. That he tries to avoid what looks like "political" decisions by the court, and instead grounds them purely in law. Roberts wants to avoid a court that looks partisan.

Conservatives think they own him and that he should rubber stamp any hateful, biased legislation they put in front of him.

That would be Clarence Thomas

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's 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

Wrong again
In 200 plus years there have only been thirty something amendments. Most changes have come through judicial interpretation.
Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.
Sucks being you. Gays now have the same protections under the law as you do.

 

[Pete7469]

Holy shit. This never happened when Obama was president, and you probably claimed Obama was dividing the country back then.

Compared to Trump, Obama was Abraham Lincoln

WTF are you talking about?

This started because of the meat puppet faggot's administration. There would have been no fag weddings if he had defended the law, rather than let the court default on the side of freaks that want to play house.

The queer mafia would never be so bold as to demand men with beards wearing a dress are treated as if they really are broads and get to piss in the ladies room. Queen Antifa even ordered public schools to obey 5 year olds who insist their junk doesn't establish their gender, the brainwashed "confusion" thanks to some warped influence was what made the difference.


.

 

[meaner gene]

WTF are you talking about?

This started because of the meat puppet faggot's administration. There would have been no fag weddings if he had defended the law, rather than let the court default on the side of freaks that want to play house.

You know that McConnels refusal to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, meant that a 4-4 court, means that with no swing votes, they let stand the decisions of the circuit courts.

 

[johnwk]

Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.

You are a very confused person. "Equal protection under the law" is nowhere to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

SECTION ONE of the 14th Amendment explained for dummies


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


This section of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

 

[Pete7469]

You know that McConnels refusal to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, meant that a 4-4 court, means that with no swing votes, they let stand the decisions of the circuit courts.

The Defense of Marriage Act went undefended and was over turned long before that, then it was after even that we saw freaks of nature suing private businesses because they wanted nothing to do with their silly "wedding" antics. I didn't even give that much of a shit until they ruined people and took out their businesses just because they refused to participate.

That is so morally reprehensible, but bed wetting leftists have no morals to begin with.

I'm glad McConnel didn't allow Queen Antifa's last pick to get a vote regardless. It was the first time he actually put up a fight against that malignant piece of shit traitor.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.

You are a very confused person. "Equal protection under the law" is nowhere to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment.


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws.

JWK

You shouldn't claim the 14th doesn't provide equal protection by pointing out it's equal protections.

 

[Crepitus]

Boy, Trump keeps proving over and over that he's shitty at picking important people.

He can't fire this one and throw him under the bus in a tantrum, though.

Conservatives keep driving these conservative judges down our throats and then whine when they are not as batshit crazy as they are

Once they have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land they suddenly realize they aren't beholden to any idiot ideology any more.

 

[johnwk]

You shouldn't claim the 14th doesn't provide equal protection by pointing out it's equal protections.

4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

 

[Dana7360]

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

You're still crying about this? LOL.

Grow up. No matter what you say LGBTQ people now have the same rights as heterosexual people.

I know it keeps you up at night and causes you great distress but there's nothing you can do about it.

You don't matter. What you want doesn't matter. No one knows you exist beyond your small circle of family and friends. Not one cares at bit what you want or think. You are no one. You don't make policy or law in our nation. You have absolutely no say on anything that happens in this nation beyond casting a vote. You are powerless to do anything about this.

Face it, you lost. Get over it.

Loser.

 

[meaner gene]

You shouldn't claim the 14th doesn't provide equal protection by pointing out it's equal protections.

4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

You're arguing that equal protection doesn't mean equal protection.

By quoting the requirement for equal protection.

Perhaps you should give an example of a states legal discrimination.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's 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

Bovine excrement! Not buying it. Anyone who would put this much energy into railing about this ruling is not committed to equal rights. Stop lying. Do you or do you not thing that LGBT people should be protected in the workplace.? What is your position on marriage equality? Tell the truth.

 

[Dana7360]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's 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

Wrong again
In 200 plus years there have only been thirty something amendments. Most changes have come through judicial interpretation.
Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.
Sucks being you. Gays now have the same protections under the law as you do.

There have been 33 proposed amendments.

Not all of them became an amendment.

There are 27 amendments to the constitution

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry Conservatives, hate to break it to you

But Civil Rights now apply to gays. They can marry, adopt children, join the military and you can’t fire them for being gay.
You can pontificate about the founding fathers not endorsing gay rights, but in 2020, they have the same rights as you do.

You apparently do not see the big picture as I do. My post is not about being against equal rights. It's 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

Wrong again
In 200 plus years there have only been thirty something amendments. Most changes have come through judicial interpretation.
Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.
Sucks being you. Gays now have the same protections under the law as you do.

There have been 33 proposed amendments.

Not all of them became an amendment.

There are 27 amendments to the constitution

And thousands of court decisions on the Constitution

 

[rightwinger]

Equal protection under the law is covered under the 14th amendment.

You are a very confused person. "Equal protection under the law" is nowhere to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

SECTION ONE of the 14th Amendment explained for dummies


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


This section of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all.

JWK

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


You lose

 

[Death-Ninja]

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

You're still crying about this? LOL.

Grow up. No matter what you say LGBTQ people now have the same rights as heterosexual people.

I know it keeps you up at night and causes you great distress but there's nothing you can do about it.

You don't matter. What you want doesn't matter. No one knows you exist beyond your small circle of family and friends. Not one cares at bit what you want or think. You are no one. You don't make policy or law in our nation. You have absolutely no say on anything that happens in this nation beyond casting a vote. You are powerless to do anything about this.

Face it, you lost. Get over it.

Loser.

This is evidence of two almost indisputable things, first you didn't read the decision and have absolutely no idea what the fuck it is you are blathering on about. Secondly, it is a bald faced lie, and just one more reason to move right to civil war status and get rid of every fucking one of you! The decision, written by a leftist justice of the high court who successfully lied to the man who nominated him, and the American people who placed trust in him to honor what actually turned out to be those lies of following original intent of law, does not create equality dumb ass, it granted these sexual deviants extraordinary protections not afforded to a single other person whose sexual orientation is both biologically correct, and heterosexual, in point of fact it singularly elevated these people above all other citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation, or sexual delusions regarding their actual biological gender!

Do you know whats in your future, alienated Americans, whom the fascist democratic party has successfully rubbed out of existence as far as equality is concerned, well they outnumber you fascists 2:1, and sooner than you think, they are gonna riot too, except when they riot they are gonna burn you, and every other sexual deviant at the stake! This is not wishful thinking dumb ass, this is what always happens when a sick, twisted minority attempts to seize power from people who have the ability to shoot back at them, and whom have discovered they have no representation in what has been revealed to be a totally corrupt political process! So, you gloat to your twisted little hearts content, its gonna be a very very short lived experience for your kind....