The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Classical Liberalism revealed. Well, rerevealed.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.
The majority’s reasoning flies in the face of both the plain statutory meaning of “sex” in 1964 and the clear legislative intent of the lawmakers who drafted and passed the Civil Rights Act, as explained by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female,” he writes. “After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, panning the majority opinion as “legislation” written under the “deceptive” guise of “interpreting a statute,” reminding the majority that the court’s duty “is limited to saying what the law is” rather than adding to it.
Trump’s other appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he noted that the “responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”
Kavanaugh also wrote, however, that the majority opinion represented an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans,” who “advanced powerful policy arguments,” displayed “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,” and “can take pride in today’s result”... “notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
1) Carrie Severino:
Justice Scalia would be disappointed [ashamed?] that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards.
This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system. (1/x)
While the question of whether to amend Title VII to add more categories may be a difficult one as a matter of policy, the question of the Court’s role on this issue was an easy one: Allow the people to decide the issue through their elected representatives. (2/x)
Today six judges acting as advocates opted to rewrite the statute themselves, short-circuiting the legislative process and in the process denying the people a decision that should be theirs to make on a major issue. (3/x)
Have no doubts about what happened today: This was the hijacking of textualism.
You can't redefine the meaning of words themselves and still be doing textualism. This is an ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy. (end)
The conservative legal movement has accomplished two things: libertarian political economy (enforced by judges) and betrayal of social conservatives and traditionalists.
The next (and perhaps most important) step is for social conservatives to realize that donor economics is not merely incidental. It flows from, and reinforces, principles that degrade family, community, industrial bases, and nations.
3) Daniel Horowitz:
Or better yet, deligitimize judicial supremacy.
￼Sean Davis@seanmdavThe Supreme Court is not a court of law. It is a super-legislature run by nine politicians with lifetime tenure. Conservatives need to stop picking justices based on promises from nominees about how they'll analyze cases and start picking individuals who will vote correctly.
But your point is well taken. If we will treat it like a voting body that has the final say over our society, then i sure as hell want to know how he will vote even more than a senator.
4) Sohrab Ahmari:
It turns out if you remove natural law's substrates of metaphysics and philosophical anthropology, you can end up with a mind capable of "reading" gender identity into a statute squarely concerned with biological sex.
5) Patrick Deneen:
How is it George Will described the American tradition? Oh, yea - "Limited government respectful of society’s cumulative intelligence and preferences collaboratively revealed through market transactions." That'll hold us together.
Why are the hills the place you should head? What do you do when you get there? This is the vital information that Twitter can provide at this time.
A modest suggestion: if a Republican ever gets to name a Supreme again, look at law school graduates from outside the ivy orbit. For Pete's sake, how many times can you wear a sign that says "kick me again?"
Remind me again why progressives so fiercely oppose Republican judicial nominees? They should know by now that their allegiance to their class will always trump any purported social conservatism.