SCOTUS Blurs Separation of Powers in LGBT Decision

SCOTUS Blurs Separation of Powers in LGBT Decision

SCOTUS Blurs Separation of Powers in LGBT Decision

SCOTUS, in a 6-3 decision, has reached back in history to 1964 and decided to rewrite the plain language of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender-identity in workplace protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whatever win the so-called LGBT community can claim, it is another blow against the Constitution.

The high court, in a 6-3 decision, said the broad language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, should be read to cover sexual orientation as well. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in addition to the four more liberal members of the court. […]

For all its cultural and political controversy, the case was simple, Justice Gorsuch found. He focused on the text of the statute Congress passed in 1964, forbidding workplace discrimination against an individual “because of…sex.”

There was no getting around it, he said: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it wouldn’t have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

While I do understand what Gorsuch is trying to do with his “traits and actions” comment, he is really having the word sex doing the same heavy lifting here that retired Justice Kennedy did in the word salad that passed for the majority opinion in Obergefell. Kennedy’s reasoning was that sex was irrelevant to marriage (ironically, Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion in Obergefell while joining the majority here).

SCOTUS blurs Civil Rights Act

I guarantee you that in 1964 the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights act was clear – as it is today for any honest, reasonable adult. Sex, in science and law, is that which describes, for humans and other mammalian species, one or another individual possessing the inherent biological qualities of being male or female. Human beings are a dimorphic species. One’s personal “gender identity” is irrelevant to that fact.

That’s it. In 1964 “sex” in the Civil Rights act had absolutely nothing to do with who you dated or how you dressed outside of work. It was about making sure men and women were treated as equals in the workplace. What Gorsuch has done here is first redefine “sex” to include not just sexual orientation but gender-identity. The latter being even more problematic because the Trans Activists reject the concept of biological sex and sexual orientation from the get go.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent is spot-on with the core problem of this ruling.

“Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court,” he wrote.

SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented …

“There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive,” Alito wrote.

Alito noted that the majority opinion “no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses,” acknowledging the desire to treat gay, lesbian, and transgender people “with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves,” but said the court’s role “is limited to saying what the law is,” not adding to it.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but the Constitution is very clear on the separation of powers. SCOTUS is not a super-legislature put there to reflect the latest cultural fad. Bad decisions have come back to haunt the nation and bring disrepute to the court. From Dred Scott to Korematsu v. U.S, when SCOTUS dabbles in legislating from the bench in order to uphold the passions of the crowd, the consequences are rarely positive.

While I personally find the idea of firing someone because they joined a gay softball team abhorrent, my disgust does not obligate SCOTUS to rewrite and redefine the word sex and dismissing what was the intent of the legislative branch when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

We’ve already seen the cancel culture and the anti-woman, and homophobic bullying at the hands of the Trans Community that has arisen since Obergefell. This decision adds napalm to that dumpster fire.

President Trump is having a major effect on the federal court system in general by appointing originalists, and while in this decision Judge Gorsuch asserts a plain reading that strains all credulity to his claim of being such, just imagine what SCOTUS would do if the Left via HRC or sock-puppet Biden were appointing judges.

featured image, Adobe Stock, standard license

Written by

  • Scott says:

    I expected better from Gorsuch

  • Garland Twitty says:

    The original legislation was flawed: It would have been better to say that all workplace decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotions, . . . , shall be based on merit.

    Note: when a discrimination complaint is filed with the Dept of Labor, the DoL investigator examines the relative merits of the individuals involved as they pertain to a particular job, not whether the boss tells derogatory jokes.

    Does workplace harassment need special laws? If a workplace is hostile to overweight employees, do we need a federal statute to address it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner