Supreme Court Ruling Erodes State Sovereignty, Shows Futility of Relying on the Courts

[WisconsinLiberty]

Supreme Court Ruling Erodes State Sovereignty, Shows Futility of Relying on the Courts


The New American
July 6, 2022


This past term, the Supreme Court made multiple significant rulings that upheld a faithful interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. These included overturning Roe v. Wade, confirming a right to carry firearms in public, limiting the power of executive-branch agencies, and several major pro-religious-freedom rulings (here, here, and here).

However, one major ruling departs from the Constitution, undermines state sovereignty, and shows how liberty-minded Americans cannot put their trust in the judiciary to save our Republic.

In Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, released last week, the Court ruled 5-4 that states can be forced — via lawsuits — to enforce and comply with federal laws enacted under the guise of congressional “war powers.”

The case began after Le Roy Torres, a former Texas state trooper who was injured while serving with the U.S. Army Reserve in Iraq, was allegedly refused a comparable job by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) after his injuries made him unable to do his previous job.

Torres sued the DPS under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). This act requires all employers — including state and local governments — to rehire employees after serving in the military, whether in the same job or a comparable job. The DPS countered by arguing that it was protected by “state sovereign immunity.”

Despite the heart-wrenching background of this case, it is necessary for the judiciary to abide by the Constitution. Ultimately, the DPS is correct: Nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress to infringe upon states’ sovereign immunity. Additionally, USERRA’s provision regulating state-government employers directly violates the 10th Amendment. Ignoring the Constitution on this matter would damage state sovereignty.

Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court’s three leftists in ruling against the DPS. In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer — his last before resigning — the Court claimed that “as part of the plan of the Convention, the States waived their immunity under Congress’ Article I power ‘[t]o raise and support Armies’ and ‘provide and maintain a Navy.’”

Of course, the Constitution says no such thing. Furthermore, USERRA is, at best, only tangentially related to raising and supporting the armed forces.

Justice Clarence Thomas, arguably the most constitutionalist sitting justice, wrote the dissent. Strongly disagreeing with Breyer’s majority opinion, he argued that “USERRA’s cause of action is uniquely offensive to the States’ dignity because it purports ‘to press a State’s own courts into federal service to coerce the other branches of the State,’ thereby ‘turn[ing] the State against itself’ and ‘commandeer[ing] the entire political machinery of the State against its will and at the behest of individuals.’” Continuing, Thomas stated, “That kind of ‘plenary federal control of state governmental processes denigrates the separate sovereignty of the States.’”

The Supreme Court’s Torres ruling illustrates the danger of relying on the Courts to save our Republic. Although this Supreme Court has made multiple pro-Constitution decisions, and is arguably more conservative than at any point since 1931, it continues to make other decisions that contradict the Constitution.

Furthermore, there remain countless federal laws, court rulings, and regulations with no constitutional basis, and it is not likely that the Supreme Court will strike down many of them in the near future. And finally, the Supreme Court only needs two additional leftist justices to see the Court’s rulings shift starkly to the left, and every constitutionalist ruling reversed.

Accordingly, liberty-minded Americans must not become complacent. Rather, they must continue working to create an informed electorate, one that understands the Constitution, along with the true nature of the threats facing our Republic. Additionally, they must continue promoting nullification as the solution to federal usurpations, urging state legislators to enact strong bills nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and court rulings.

The Supreme Court decisions mentioned at the beginning of this article are certainly heartening and positive to see. By continuing and intensifying our educational and activist efforts, we can help ensure they will not be temporary.

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court’s three leftists in ruling against the DPS.

You know what you will never see? A judge appointed by Democrats moving away from their "ends justify the means", "by any means necessary" implementation of an all powerful socialist central government. Look at Merrick Garland, who almost ended up on the court. Can anyone say today that he would have been an honest and unbiased judge?

[DamianTV]

I think the last several rulings have AFFIRMED the 9th and 10th Amendments, by returning power not delegated to the Federal Govt to the States, not the other way around. And I do not trust this Supreme Court, so I have looked at their last rulings with a very skeptical eye.

I dont buy it.

I will add this. I think the purpose of the ruling being overturned on Roe. vs Wade had NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR STATE RIGHTS. I think it was INTENDED to MANUFACTURE CONFLICT and TRIGGER LEFTISTS because these people gain their power through CHAOS.

[Invisible Man]

Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court’s three leftists in ruling against the DPS. In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer — his last before resigning — the Court claimed that “as part of the plan of the Convention, the States waived their immunity under Congress’ Article I power ‘[t]o raise and support Armies’ and ‘provide and maintain a Navy.’”

It seems to me that this line of the Constitution indicates the exact opposite of what the majority claimed.

This line says that it is Congress's job, and not the states, to foot the bill for the compensation it promises to give soldiers.

[jmdrake]

You know what you will never see? A judge appointed by Democrats moving away from their "ends justify the means", "by any means necessary" implementation of an all powerful socialist central government. Look at Merrick Garland, who almost ended up on the court. Can anyone say today that he would have been an honest and unbiased judge?

I think the last several rulings have AFFIRMED the 9th and 10th Amendments, by returning power not delegated to the Federal Govt to the States, not the other way around. And I do not trust this Supreme Court, so I have looked at their last rulings with a very skeptical eye.

I dont buy it.

I will add this. I think the purpose of the ruling being overturned on Roe. vs Wade had NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR STATE RIGHTS. I think it was INTENDED to MANUFACTURE CONFLICT and TRIGGER LEFTISTS because these people gain their power through CHAOS.

Don't forget Roberts and Gorsuch voted with Kagan to re-interpret sex to include sexual orientation for the purposes of the civil rights act.

[jkr]

I think the last several rulings have AFFIRMED the 9th and 10th Amendments, by returning power not delegated to the Federal Govt to the States, not the other way around. And I do not trust this Supreme Court, so I have looked at their last rulings with a very skeptical eye.

I dont buy it.

I will add this. I think the purpose of the ruling being overturned on Roe. vs Wade had NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE OR STATE RIGHTS. I think it was INTENDED to MANUFACTURE CONFLICT and TRIGGER LEFTISTS because these people gain their power through CHAOS.

that u ToM?

[Sonny Tufts]

Don't forget Roberts and Gorsuch voted with Kagan to re-interpret sex to include sexual orientation for the purposes of the civil rights act.

You can't always predict how a justice is going to rule. John Paul Stevens, who at the time was the most liberal justice on the Court, voted to uphold Texas' law prohibiting flag desecration, while Antonin Scalia, who was the most conservative, voted to declare it unconstitutional. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397

[jmdrake]

You can't always predict how a justice is going to rule. John Paul Stevens, who at the time was the most liberal justice on the Court, voted to uphold Texas' law prohibiting flag desecration, while Antonin Scalia, who was the most conservative, voted to declare it unconstitutional. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397

I can't explain Stevens ruling, but Scalia took the constitutional position in that case. What's odd about Roberts and Gorsuch ruing on expanding the meaning of "sex" in the CRA is that it neither fits social conservatism nor a conservative "textualist" approach.

[Invisible Man]

I can't explain Stevens ruling, but Scalia took the constitutional position in that case. What's odd about Roberts and Gorsuch ruing on expanding the meaning of "sex" in the CRA is that it neither fits social conservatism nor a conservative "textualist" approach.

Did they expand the meaning of "sex"? Or did they argue as follows?

The law must permit a woman to do everything it permits a man to do and vice versa.
The law permits a man to marry a woman and a woman to marry a man.
Therefore, the law must permit a woman to marry a woman and a man to marry a man.

That's not really redefining sex so much as expanding what equal protection under the law must entail in ways that the framers of the 14th Amendment surely didn't mean.

[jmdrake]

Did they expand the meaning of "sex"? Or did they argue as follows?

The law must permit a woman to do everything it permits a man to do and vice versa.
The law permits a man to marry a woman and a woman to marry a man.
Therefore, the law must permit a woman to marry a woman and a man to marry a man.

That's not really redefining sex so much as expanding what equal protection under the law must entail in ways that the framers of the 14th Amendment surely didn't mean.

Wrong. This isn't about whether the law must permit a man to do everything a woman can do or vise vesa but rather must private companies, based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, allow hire gay employees. Regardless of whether you think such discrimination is okay or not, this required a change of the meaning of the word "sex" in the statute. It's even admitted in the language of the opinion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618

  (1) The parties concede that the term “sex” in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female. And “the ordinary meaning of ‘because of’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of,’ ” University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S. 338, 350. That term incorporates the but-for causation standard, id., at 346, 360, which, for Title VII, means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action. The term “discriminate” meant “[t]o make a difference in treatment or favor (of one as compared with others).” Webster’s New International Dictionary 745. In so-called “disparate treatment” cases, this Court has held that the difference in treatment based on sex must be intentional. See, e.g., Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977, 986. And the statute’s repeated use of the term “individual” means that the focus is on “[a] particular being as distinguished from a class.” Webster’s New International Dictionary, at 1267. Pp. 4–9.

  (2) These terms generate the following rule: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It makes no difference if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision or that the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII. There is no escaping the role intent plays: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking. Pp. 9–12.

[acptulsa]

...this required a change of the meaning of the word "sex" in the statute.

They're redefining half the language. It's a powerful weapon.

[DamianTV]

that u ToM?

Dont reveal my secret identity!