im电竞官网-The Supreme Court to a man my age. And Neil Gorsuch delivering the majority opinion? It’s a world gone mad.
The Court stated clearly and unequivocally that firing an employee based solely on their LGBTQ status violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is in every sense a landmark decision, definitive and massive. (It is a full 172 pages long.). Gorsuch wrote and delivered the majority opinion for a 6-3 Court. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined in one dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own. And even PJ and Squi’s old drinking buddy couched his disagreement in respect for the achievements of the LGBTQ movement.
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement.
Like I said, it’s a world gone mad.
And the Court’s thinking was clear from .
Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s con sequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.
im电竞官网-Reading Gorsuch’s opinion that fundamentally refutes the doctrine of original legislative intent, at least in this case, alongside Kavanaugh’s prefacing his dissent with a rousing paean to the achievements of LGBTQ activists, makes me wonder whether or not there is a solid, tacit acknowledgement among the Nine Wise Souls that the ship has sailed, and that it’s time the law caught up with demography on these issues. In any case, shock and delight don’t often get together these days. We grab them where we can.