Activist judges triumph in new SCOTUS ruling

Wednesday, June 17, 2020
 | 
Tim Wildmon - Guest Columnist
http://www.afa.net
Wildmon

Monday's Supreme Court ruling marks yet another in a growing list of betrayals of the U.S. Constitution by those sworn to uphold it. The separation of powers created by that document is not only nonnegotiable, it is the very heart of our republic.


On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court bypassed Congress and by judicial fiat inserted sexual orientation and gender identity into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The high court issued its 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a decision that consolidated a total of three cases into one. The ruling shocked conservatives because joining the liberal wing of the court were two supposed constitutional justices –– Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the wording of the decision.

The 1964 law prohibits discrimination on the basis of a number of characteristics, including "sex." Gorsuch admitted that the meaning of the word as written referred "only to biological distinctions between male and female" –– not sexual orientation and gender identity, as the plaintiffs claimed.

Nevertheless, Gorsuch proceeded to create a loophole through which he drove the legal result he desired.

Justice Gorsuch claimed he followed a strict textual interpretation of Title VII, which he said required the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in federal law.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, issued a scathing response to Gorsuch. Alito wrote:

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court's opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should "update" old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Alito further dissented stating, "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. … A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall."

This Supreme Court ruling marks yet another in a growing list of betrayals of the U.S. Constitution by those sworn to uphold it. The separation of powers created by that document is not only nonnegotiable, it is the very heart of our republic. By clearly legislating from its bench, what the high court has done is remove yet another brick from the wall meant to defend the country against the prospect of tyranny. If the Supreme Court does not care about what the Constitution says, why should anyone else?

Those who love and respect the founding document of our republic must continue to call out these abuses and to fight and protect the First Amendment freedom of religious liberty allowing Christians to share the gospel freely. There are forces intent on destroying the greatest freedom experiment in human history, and true patriots must peacefully continue to uphold the principles that have made this country so great.


Tim Wildmon (contact@afa.net) is president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, MS. This column appeared originally on The Stand, the official blog of the American Family Association.

This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

FEATURED PODCAST

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Is it important to link Black Lives Matter with its ‘trained Marxist’ co-founders?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

1 of 2 protesters hit by car on closed Seattle highway dies
2 dead, 8 hurt in South Carolina nightclub shooting
Crunch, crunch: Africa’s locust outbreak is far from over
For nation’s birthday, Trump slams the enemies within
Kansas newspaper's post equates mask mandate with Holocaust
Heavy rain floods southern Japan; over a dozen presumed dead

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Portland police declare ‘riot’ again – as city sees 38th straight day of unrest
Chicago erupts in July 4 gunfire -- with girl, 7, and boy, 14, among those killed
Columbus statue toppled by Baltimore protesters
Trump defends US history, blasts 'radical left' in 'Salute to America' celebration
At UN Human Rights Council, 53 countries back China's draconian Hong Kong crackdown

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day