Results 1 to 9 of 9

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

  1. #1

    Gorsuch uses Humpty Dumpty theory of language in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia 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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

    Your use of the term "sexual deviant conduct" is as Humpty Dumptyish as anything. At one time I suspect that anything other than the use of the missionary position by married couples was deemed deviant, but times have changed.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause.




    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”



    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.

    Now, getting back to the subject of the thread:

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.



    In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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

  6. #5
    Sounds like legislating from the bench. Not a very originalist interpretation.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post



    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”



    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.

    Now, getting back to the subject of the thread:

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964 usurped a power not authorized by our Constitution to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. And Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion lied in Bostock v. Clayton County, by asserting Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also prohibits business owners to make business decisions based upon sexual deviant behavior and conduct.



    In fact, Justice Gorsuch applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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
    I agree that the 1965 Civil Rights Act is an bold face usurpation

    License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 470-471 (1867) (holding that Congress has "no power" to regulate "the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States, " including the intrastate sale of lottery tickets); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 587-601 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (documenting why the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate purely local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce)

    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

    The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.
    I was talking about what the law IS, not about what someone thinks it SHOULD be.

    Incidentally, given your quote from Justice Black you should be informed that he concurred in the decisions in both Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung. From his concurring opinion in the former:

    It requires no novel or strained interpretation of the Commerce Clause to sustain Title II as applied in either of these cases. At least since Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, decided in 1824 in an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, it has been uniformly accepted that the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States is plenary, "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." 9 Wheat., at 196. Nor is "Commerce" as used in the Commerce Clause to be limited to a narrow, technical concept. It includes not only, as Congress has enumerated in the Act, "travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication," but also all other unitary transactions and activities that take place in more States than one. That some parts or segments of such unitary transactions may take place only in one State cannot, of course, take from Congress its plenary power to regulate them in the national interest. The facilities and instrumentalities used to carry on this commerce, such as railroads, truck lines, ships, rivers, and even highways are also subject to congressional regulation, so far as is necessary to keep interstate traffic upon fair and equal terms. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557.

    Furthermore, it has long been held that the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 18, adds to the commerce power of Congress the power to regulate local instrumentalities operating within a single State if their activities burden the flow of commerce among the States.
    379 U.S. at 270-271
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 03-04-2021 at 06:51 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 470-471 (1867) (holding that Congress has "no power" to regulate "the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States, " including the intrastate sale of lottery tickets); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 587-601 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (documenting why the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate purely local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce).
    That aspect of The License Tax Cases has been overruled by numerous later SCOTUS cases. Lopez didn't involve economic activity but rather the validity of a criminal law prohibiting the posession of a handgun close to a school.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Justice Gorsuch engaged in an act of tyranny in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Sounds like legislating from the bench. Not a very originalist interpretation.
    That's exactly what Justice Gorsuch's opinion is.


    The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative authority proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Equality Act, is a usurpation of power not granted.

    The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is as follows:

    "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.

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

    "Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."


    Note that Section 2 would grant the power which Gorsuch exercised in spite of the American People denying that power to our federal government, and to this degree, Gorsuch acted as judge, jury and executioner . . . so to speak.


    JWK


    ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2020, 01:58 PM
  2. Humpty Dumpty Has Had a Great Fall
    By shakey1 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-01-2019, 07:24 PM
  3. Greedy Humpty Dumpty = NWO
    By Petar in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 10:54 PM
  4. Peter Schiff: The Humpty Dumpty Economy 11/14/08
    By nbruno322 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 02:38 PM
  5. Political Cartoon - Humpty Dumpty
    By Change in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 10:29 AM

Posting Permissions

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