Six of the nine high priests in black robes have confirmed what I’ve been warning you about for years: That the Supreme Court has now become the Supreme Legislature. When will the American People say enough is enough of these blatant violations by the courts and demand their representatives do something?
There are plenty of constitutional issues with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I see issues with some of the cases that were bundled together with Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. What the supreme Court did in its opinion though, is not only a bad decision, but a blatant violation of the justices’ oath to support the Constitution. Six of the nine justices took it upon themselves to become another legislature. That’s right, the court decided it could rewrite law because it didn’t like the way it was being applied.
How it is Supposed to Work
You may have learned in school that the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judicial interprets them, but that is not an accurate description of how a constitutional republic works. Yes, the legislative writes the law and the executive enforces them, but the role of the judiciary is to provide judgment when parties disagree.
JUDI’CIARY, noun That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Nowhere in the Constitution is the judicial branch given the power to amend, rewrite, or otherwise modify either the language or the meaning of legislation. Their only “power” is to determine, in the case before them, that the legislation is unconstitutional and leave the modification of the law to Congress.
Bad Behavior
The parties concede that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Syllabus
All the parties to this dispute agree that the term “sex” means the biological differences between male and female, but that is not good enough for these justices.
The employers also stress that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, and that if Congress wanted to address these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically. But when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, this Court applies the broad rule.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Syllabus
Nowhere in the Constitution are members of the judicial branch given the authority to reinterpret the law to meet their own agenda. The employers are correct: If Congress wanted to include homosexuality and transgender states in the law, they would have. In fact, Congress has considered, and so far rejected, doing so.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employ ment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.
Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty. This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.
Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Alito Dissent
As Justice Alito notes his dissent, the law says what the law says. The Court does not have the legal authority to determine how broadly or narrowly a law is written. The Justices are legally bound to the language of the law, not what they want it to say. As Justice Alito states in his dissent:
But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Alito Dissent
I would not have put it so nicely. The majority of justices on the court trampled the rule of law, stole the law-making authority of Congress and, by extension, the American people, and overturned the Constitution of the United States. Justice Kavanaugh puts it quite succinctly in his dissent:
Like many cases in this Court, this case boils down to one fundamental question: Who decides? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of ” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The question here is whether Title VII should be expanded to prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. 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.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Kavanaugh Dissent
This is not simply a “brazen abuse of authority”, it is an attempt to overturn the legally elected government of the union, which makes it a borderline coup. Can you think of a more egregious example of bad behavior?
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1
Conclusion
As I said in the beginning, I am not commenting on the merits of the cases involved. I have not researched them, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them. In general, I agree that a person should not be fired for what they do in the privacy of their own home. I also know that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to insert itself into the employer/employee relationship unless it involves a right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution. While I believe Title VII was created with the best of intentions, it deprives the employer of their property (namely the job), without due process of law. Title VII also violates the First Amendment by placing restrictions on who the employer must associate with and how they wish to exercise their religious beliefs. Title VII partially nationalizes every business by effectively declaring that the federal government has a role in how it is staffed and managed. For those reasons it should be scrapped.
By ignoring the language of Title VII and the Constitution, these justices have violated good behavior and at the very least should be publicly reprimanded and possibly dismissed according to Article III of the Constitution. Yes, that means these justices should face impeachment, not simply for their workers’ rights belief, but for blatantly violating their oath to support the Constitution. They have provided the evidence of their malfeasance. Since the parties agree on the definition of sex in the law, usurping the role of Congress by redefining the meaning is a violation of their oath to support the Constitution. To do so in the face of 45 years of history showing the intent of Congress is not simply a usurpation of the legislative process, but of the entire system of our Constitutional Republic. If these justices are not punished for their bad behavior, then we are no longer a republic. We have replaced a monarchy in London with an oligarchy in Washington, D.C. Your rights and liberties are no longer subject to the rule of law, but to the whims of our rulers on the court. We are in the exact same situation our Founding Fathers found so despicable that they declared their independence and fought a war to overturn it. You could easily read the Declaration of Independence today and replace the word “king” with “court” and “Great Britain” with “Washington, D.C.”
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
Declaration of Independence
How long before the American people rise up to declare their independence from tyranny? And will they act in time to do so at the ballot box rather than on the battle field?
