Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Gorsuch uses Humpty Dumpty theory of language in Bostock v. Clayton County, case

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,533

    Gorsuch uses Humpty Dumpty theory of language in Bostock v. Clayton County, case

    .


    In the Bostock v. Clayton County case Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, June, 2020, lied to the American People with regard the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The case involved three business owners who made business decisions to let go an employee based on their sexual deviant behavior and conduct. Gorsuch found they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by simply asserting the word “sex”, found in the Act, not only applies to the male and female gender, but also applies to sexual behavior and conduct.

    Of course, Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Senator Howard who added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, was to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace.

    But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex, and thus, adding “sex” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in and of itself, was an assumption of power not granted to Congress. In fact, a number of attempts have been made over the years to grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit distinctions in the workplaces being made based upon sex. in the 1920s an “Equal Rights” amendment was proposed to be added to the United States Constitution which would have, if adopted, granted the legislative power to Congress, i.e.,

    “Article  —

    “ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    “ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”


    But these attempts to grant the legislative power to Congress have repeatedly been rejected by the American People and for good cause . . . unintended consequences and those predictable, some of which would fly in the face of our nation’s moral character.


    In any event, the question is, where does Congress get the legislative authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people have refused to grant such power to Congress and have preferred to deal with this issue within their own state borders?

    The sad truth is, Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, simply applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and did so to enforce his personal sense of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

    JWK

    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    62
    Encouraging, but I'd like to know more about what is being meant by "deviant". Does that mean cross dressing at work, or just spending the night with a date?

  3. #3
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,533

    House passes "Equality Act", assumes legislative power not granted

    .

    Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not granted [forbidding distinctions in the workplace based upon sex] the Equality Act, which recently passed the House, likewise usurps a legislative power, this time prohibiting distinctions being made by private employees in their hiring based upon sexual deviant practices and conduct.


    As the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act led to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers, so will the unconstitutional Equality Act encourage countless frivolous lawsuits as occurred under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    .
    See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV


    Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …


    And especially see:The ADA Litigation Monster | Americans with Disabilities Act

    “The notion that the ADA would not “lead endlessly to litigation” was also wrong. (See “The ADA Shakedown Racket,” Winter 2004.) ADA claims against employers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), now numbering more than 26,000 per year, have become as common as sex-discrimination claims. And the volume keeps rising, as does the number of ADA lawsuits against employers filed in federal court yearly.”


    The proposed Equality Act ought to be referred to as The Lawyers New Full Employment Act, in addition to being an assumption of legislative power not granted to Congress by our Constitution.


    Why is it that so many detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?




    JWK

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-20-2020, 02:17 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2013, 02:53 AM
  3. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall: By Dr. Laurie Roth
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 03:15 AM
  4. Mmm, mmm, mmm: Humpty Dumpty takes a great fall
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 07:39 PM
  5. The Humpty Dumpty Stock Market
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 09:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •