NY Times Seems Pretty Upset That The Supreme Court Could Return Conservative Verdicts

Perhaps the Times’s editorial board shouldn’t have backed an utterly horrible candidate in Hillary Clinton. Oh, and to use Mr. Obama’s words, elections have consequences. There’s also a very important line that should be remembered

Watch Out, America — The Supreme Court Is Back in Session

On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing cases in its first complete term since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, gave the court a newly emboldened right-wing majority.

The current five-member bloc has already started overturning decades-old precedents and remaking the law in ways that align remarkably well with conservative policy preferences.

The new term offers no shortage of opportunities for the conservative justices to block or roll back rights for certain groups — for example, women, L.G.B.T. people and undocumented immigrants brought to America as children — while bolstering rights for others, like gun owners and those who would knock down the crumbling wall between church and state.

Illegal aliens should only have as many rights from crime as everyone else, as our Constitution protects them. What it doesn’t protect is their ability to stay here in contradiction of federal law. And, ZOMG, how dare the Court protect 2nd Amendment Rights and blow away the entirely fictional wall between church and state.

In one of the most hotly anticipated cases, to be argued Tuesday, the justices will consider whether employers may fire employees for being gay or transgender.

The arguments will cover three separate cases — two involving gay men who said they were fired because of their sexual orientation and one involving a transgender woman who was fired after telling her employer that she was transitioning from male to female.

In regards to the first link, it mostly discusses Altitude Exp vs Zarda. You’ll have to dig pretty deep to find any article which notes that Zarda had been telling female clients for quite some time that he was gay, in order to calm them down for a tandem jump, and

On one occasion after Zarda informed a female client about his sexual orientation and performed the tandem jump with her, the client alleged that Zarda had inappropriately touched her and disclosed his sexual orientation to excuse his behavior. In response to this complaint, Zarda’s boss fired him. Zarda denied touching the client inappropriately and claimed that he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation.

Hence the reason why Zarda lost in a jury trial. And then up through many levels of court appeals. Touching clients (and telling them stories about their gay adventures, which was part of the firing) won’t keep your employed. As for the the gender confused case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said person decided they were a woman, were going to transition, and the funeral home said “not here.” They weren’t interesting in what would appear to their clients dealing with funerals to be a crossdresser. It is a very Christian focused business, but, they did offer a severance package, which the gender confused refused. And then the gender confused and the EEOC lost in court multiple times.

Here we go

Such discrimination is a daily fact of life for gay, lesbian and transgender people across the country. Some states have laws barring it, but most don’t. For people in states without their own legal protections, the only hope is federal law — specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars employers from firing, harassing or discriminating against an employee “because of” that person’s “sex.” The plaintiffs in these three cases argue that the plain language of Title VII applies to them, because they would not have been fired but for their sex — after all, if the gay men had been women, their attraction to men would not have been an issue for their employers.

The employers in these cases, with the backing of the Trump administration, say the civil rights law provides no protection to the plaintiffs, because when it was passed in the 1960s, no one imagined that it would apply to sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s true — many L.G.B.T. Americans were closeted at the time, and they faced severe consequences for standing up for their equality in public. But what lawmakers might have thought more than 50 years ago is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is what the law they passed actually says.

See, it doesn’t matter what the lawmakers might have thought, it matters what the law says. These leftists/Progressives/Marxists/Communists/etc, let’s just call them Modern Socialists, including the NY Times Editorial Board, have long argued that the Constitution is outdated, but, it says what is says. The Modern Socialists want to eliminate 2nd Amendment Rights because we didn’t have semi-auto and automatic weapons back then, but the Amendment is the Amendment.

Likewise, they want to erode the 1st. Free Speech, religious rights, and asking for redress of grievance.  Further, they are fine with ignoring the peaceably part of protesting, as long as it applies to Modern Socialist groups.

Further, if we stretch it, the power of the federal government needs to be immediately reduced, based on the 10th Amendment.

Regardless, what will the Court rule? The Times thinks they will rule against the gays and gender confused because they are gay and gender confused, not because there were actually reasons to fire them. They weren’t just fired in a vacuum.

This term, the court also will hear a challenge to President Trump’s decision in 2017 to reverse President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order protecting undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — the roughly 700,000 young men and women known as Dreamers.

…..Mr. Obama claimed that he was using well-established presidential discretion to decide how to enforce immigration laws and to prioritize the deportation of certain people and not others, like the Dreamers.

Even Obama said that DACA was un-Constitutional, and you can bet that will be brought up. And, since it was an Executive Action, any future president has the explicit ability to cancel it. They have that discretion. I thought the Times said that it doesn’t matter what people thought, but what the law/Constitution actually says.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7265 access attempts in the last 7 days.