Before I reported anything I'd want to know if the reports are public record.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court decides not to hear big gun-rights cases, dealing blow to Second Amendment activists
- Thread starter LoginName
- Start date
This report is very telling. SCOTUS seems content to actually interpret law so broadly they are actually making new law. To me, that is a huge problem.
>From The Hill:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination. A set of cases that came before the court had asked the justices to decide whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the six-member majority, said that it does. "Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "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."
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision. The decision was one of the most highly anticipated of a Supreme Court term stacked with high-profile cases. It was delivered in the middle of LGBT Pride Month.
The Trump administration had weighed in on the cases, arguing on behalf of a group of employers who had been brought to court for firing their gay or transgender employees. The Department of Justice had argued that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees. Last week, the administration similarly finalized a Department of Health and Human Services rule that excludes gay and transgender people from discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act.
The dissenting justices criticized the majority for projecting what they see as a new meaning on a decades-old law. Alito argued that it is unlikely that lawmakers in 1964 would have sought to protect gay or transgender people from discrimination. "If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation, not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time," Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.
"Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court?s updating of Title VII," Alito continued. "But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."
In his own separate dissent, Kavanaugh added, "Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation." But Kavanaugh dismissed his fellow conservatives' objections, arguing that "applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law's passage whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s often may be seen as unexpected."
"But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law?s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law's terms," Kavanaugh continued.
.
>From The Hill:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination. A set of cases that came before the court had asked the justices to decide whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the six-member majority, said that it does. "Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "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."
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision. The decision was one of the most highly anticipated of a Supreme Court term stacked with high-profile cases. It was delivered in the middle of LGBT Pride Month.
The Trump administration had weighed in on the cases, arguing on behalf of a group of employers who had been brought to court for firing their gay or transgender employees. The Department of Justice had argued that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees. Last week, the administration similarly finalized a Department of Health and Human Services rule that excludes gay and transgender people from discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act.
The dissenting justices criticized the majority for projecting what they see as a new meaning on a decades-old law. Alito argued that it is unlikely that lawmakers in 1964 would have sought to protect gay or transgender people from discrimination. "If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation, not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time," Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.
"Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court?s updating of Title VII," Alito continued. "But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."
In his own separate dissent, Kavanaugh added, "Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation." But Kavanaugh dismissed his fellow conservatives' objections, arguing that "applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law's passage whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s often may be seen as unexpected."
"But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law?s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law's terms," Kavanaugh continued.
.
jaypap
NES Member
I hope he doesn't end up like Judge Scalia our only other friend.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Based on the current makeup of the court, it certainly feels like no consequential 2A case short of a full-on ban -- similar to Heller -- will be granted cert. Whether intended or not, the message to the anti-2A states is crystal clear.
Does anyone want to take a shot at setting an over/under for how many months it takes before a blue state enacts a ban on semi-auto handguns/rifles/both? One certainly can wonder if Roberts held the majority hostage in Heller to get a moderated opinion from Scalia.
Does anyone want to take a shot at setting an over/under for how many months it takes before a blue state enacts a ban on semi-auto handguns/rifles/both? One certainly can wonder if Roberts held the majority hostage in Heller to get a moderated opinion from Scalia.
Beretta92FS
NES Member
Can we start to protest, loot and burn now?
It is a loss as the lower court ruling becomes precedent.
Lokdog
NES Member
I agree with the others here that they definitely had the 4 votes to take one up but know that Roberts is an F'n coward and can't trust him on ruling on the case setting up solidified set in stone bad law. The conservative justices probably have a good feeling that Trump will win a second, the senate will stay red and good ole' RBG is NOT going to make it another 5 years, no matter how much embalming fluid they use
that was my first thought too...nope not looking to expand anything, just want our actual rights to be respected, protected, and acknowledged.
The way things are going RBG might outlive some of us. No matter what happens in Nov. I see lots of strife.
I hope to God that Trump wins, but the left will cause plenty of chaos. And if Biden happens to cheat his way to the presidency. We'll be in a civil war before the end of the year.
IMHO with Heller it was likely mostly Kennedy that was the limiting factor but Roberts may have played a role too. Had the question been more complicated there may have been a different
outcome, but the legal community outside of the far left moonbats had sort of embarassed SCOTUS for not taking a 2A case for like the better part of a century.
Not surprising. I thought the same thing when I first read the article.
My suspicion is MSM will take any opportunity to paint Kav as not the guy we wanted in the hopes it will take votes away from Trump this next run.
Asaltweapon
NES Member
It looks like it works elsewhere.
These guys have a chance to set the record straight for several decades, but they are a bunch of b*tches.
Someone probably has videos of them raping girls at Epstein's house and dangles the videos over their heads every time a 2A case comes up.
There are only three ways I can explain this:
1. Blackmail.
2. They are too afraid of making a meaningful impact.
3. They have become too political and are corrupt AF.
Asaltweapon
NES Member
#3 for sure.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
They can kick the can for only so long. The issue of suitability cuts to the heart of 2A rights.
If suitability tests are allowed to continue the 2A has no meaning.
Long term this will no hold. Yes, it sucks for us in the moment, but the reckoning will come and when it does, the die will be cast.
Take solace in the fact that guns sales and ownership is booming.
The people today are better armed than they were yesterday and tomorrow there will be that many more guns in the hands of freedom loving Americans.
The state will always be in a position to want to weaken the power of the people, but the people will always win in the end.
If suitability tests are allowed to continue the 2A has no meaning.
Long term this will no hold. Yes, it sucks for us in the moment, but the reckoning will come and when it does, the die will be cast.
Take solace in the fact that guns sales and ownership is booming.
The people today are better armed than they were yesterday and tomorrow there will be that many more guns in the hands of freedom loving Americans.
The state will always be in a position to want to weaken the power of the people, but the people will always win in the end.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,694
- Likes
- 49,281
Robert's for sure. Prob a closet pedo. They showed him a vid of himself and said play ball or else.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,694
- Likes
- 49,281
Dont assume it's only the freedom loving ones that are doing the buying.
Everyone should report their CLEO.
If you live in a green town with a nice CLEO, report Maura.
They should get thousands of requests from MA.
@GOAL maybe you should let your members know.
We could probably report everyone in the SCOTUS for not taking 2A cases and allowing States to f*ck with our rights.
Last edited:
Whutmeworry
NES Member
I actually think the opposite. If Killary had won in 2016 you wouldn’t be seeing the chaos you’re seeing right now. Their would be plenty of Marxism (as there was during Barry O’s reign) but the newspeak media would want to give the appearance of normalcy to ensure she got re-elected. Likewise, if the dementia-ridden Joe Biden wins the election, I think you’ll see a sudden effort by the powers that be to act like there’s “nothing to see here”, while doing everything they can behind the scenes to dismantle what’s left of America. The question then is, what is the “what’s left of America” prepared to do at that point?
