I've said this elsewhere, but I agree with both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and I don't think this is a bad ruling... in fact I think it might be the most red pilled ruling we've seen in a long time. Wait for the big reveal or read the bottom of my post to see what the red pill actually is.
I 100% agree with you/Kavanaugh that this should have been the job of Congress to add protected classes explicitly by law. It would have been very easy for them to do... especially in '09-'10 when Obama had a supermajority, but alas Democrats really don't give a shit about trans rights. They knew that once they give trans people their rights then there's no reason for trans people to support Democrats anymore lol.
That said, I also agree with Gorsuch's ruling... which is a secret red pill.
Gorsuch's opinion basically has a couple examples. Let's say person X is attracted to men. If you're ok with X being female but not male then this is sex discrimination.
Now let's pretend that person X dresses up and identifies as a woman. If person X is female and you're ok with that but not if X is male then that is also sex discrimination.
But guess what this also means? It means that this entire case is based on the premise that SEX is a protected class. It relies on recognizing that males and females are biological characteristics ingrained in our DNA. And at least until a male cuts up his penis into a vagina and vice versa then it also means that males = penises and females = vaginas.
We have ALL seen leftists getting enraged for calling trans women males even though yes they are biologically male. They can no longer get upset about this imo (they will anyway but they don't really have any right to anymore). Their sex status is literally what is protecting them now because there is no protected gender class.
Ya'll can all bitch and scream about Convention of States but, it's what is needed right now.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials."
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
I hear this a lot but, this is not how a Convention of States works. In case you haven't noticed, it's been a LONG time since we've had one because it is so hard. What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
You're correct, it's not true (though I question how far I trust even "True Americans" at this point).
But you forget just how dirty the other side is. They don't need to get their own people in place, they only need to threaten or blackmail the ones in place enough to swing votes. Why do you think the Republicans are so cowed? It's because things really are that bad -- much worse than people think. The CIA and FBI were completely weaponized to control politicians.
In theory, yes. But when you put people in a room throwing everything wide open, you open the door to anything.
New Amendment: "In recognition that this document is 250 years out of date, We The People declare all prior parts to be obsolete, and the following Constitution to be in effect."
Do I expect that to pass? No. But did I expect the Democrat Party to grow into a deranged combination of Fascism and Communism? No. All I know is that when people think about a constitutional convention, they have this fantasy that it will all be compromised of patriotic, "correct thinking" Americans that care about Liberty and Freedom. Well, it won't. Maybe most of them will be -- but maybe not.
I won't get into specifics, but there a LOT of conservatives, even around these parts, who aren't on-board with what I consider Liberty and Freedom (and no, I'm not talking Libertarian-style liberty and freedom).
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see new Amendments to curtail Federal power. But people seem to forget that we don't need to wait for a convention to propose new Amendments. Don't wait around for a wet dream of a Constitution Convention. Start proposing and let's see if we can get them passed.
See? We already have a problem. I don't care which adults get married and the government shouldn't be deciding that. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it's none of anyone's business.
This is why I trust NO ONE other than myself to decide my own liberty and freedom. The idea of giving idiots the power to change MY Constitution? Even with safeguards? Fuck that. People want to force their own opinions on everyone else far too easily. Start with "mind your own damn business" and let's go on from there.
There's a way, but it's messy and bloody. These fucks want to take over and destroy this country in a bloodless coup, but we can't let them have it that easy.
I wonder what would happen if President Trump told SCOTUS to review some 2A cases, then if they refused to review them under their own rules? President Trump could then remove the justices who won't review them and replace them. When people complain that isn't constitutional, Trump could point out that justices not following or upholding the constitution as it is plainly written is unconstitutional. President Trump could keep Thomas and Kavanuagh and fire the rest of them.
"Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas joined forces on a dissent Monday charging their Supreme Court colleagues with a "decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment."
"The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous 'justifiable need' or 'good cause' restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a 'good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property' violates the Second Amendment," he said. "By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard."
Such a split between the circuits is generally one of the most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to take up a case, and is actually laid out in the tribunal's official rulebook. Rule 10, which discusses what the court takes into consideration when deciding to hear a case, says the court is likely to step in when "a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter."
That's why they would be removed, thrown into prison and replaced by POTUS. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. If SCOTUS is tearing it apart, then POTUS must defend against that. If the justices are exceeding their authority in destroying the Constitution, POTUS is more than justified in exceeding his authority to protect the Constitution. This particular subject is also a question that scholars have pondered on, but never settled, nor is there any definitive ruling.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Well, I think it's on par with Marbury v. Madison, from the executive's perspective. I don't know how it would go, but honestly, what choice does he have? Seems as good a way as any to begin the war.
There has been years long battle by Left to change federal law to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. But Supreme Court today short-circuited the democratic process and rewrote the law without a vote of Congress but by a vote of six unelected judges.
He's compromised. I'm sure Obama's "secret database" contained something on him or his family. Look at his face when he walks out to vote on health care. Looks like he's been crying.
I guess Americans are shown once again that there is no need for a legislature when the judiciary simply rewrites the law. Title VII explicitly disallowed discrimination based on five aspects: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. No where is "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" listed.
The law has not been amended by Congress, and signed by the President. It has been updated by SCOTUS without the political input of the people. The Constitution loses again. If the American public wants to make discrimination based on "sexual orientation" or gender identity illegal then pass a law.
This is ridiculous, and as Alito points out in his dissent, it will lead to many issues such as how the 14th amendment will now be interpreted in regards to these categories.
Is there any way this ever gets overturned? Once again, the right isn't allowed to go within 10 feet with their opinions but the left is allowed to jam their trans dick in your face with aplomb.
My comment was in reference to doing it through the courts, but yes, if people are ready to move to that phase of things, then there is still an opportunity to overturn it.
And the argument from the Left has been "sex and gender are two different things!"
Now the SCOTUS has said "Sex, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are inextricably linked and fall under the umbrella of 'sex' legally." Now the left will use that for their legal benefit, all while maintaining that gender is completely different from sex.
This ruling is terrible and represents a dark day for America.
It falsely equates biological gender (as given by assortment of X and Y chromosomes) with perceived orientation (dictated by psychology, not physical/scientific fact).
Worse, it opens the door to a flood of bogus lawsuits that will demand Christian small businesses hire LGBTs in the name of diversity. Those that fail to comply will be sued out of business and bankrupted. Do you think they will vote for Trump again after seeing the consequences? The First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion have just been shredded.
Title VII also was never intended to cover mental disorders and psychological conditions - rather, it prevents discrimination based on something you're born with and unable to change. This terrible ruling violates separation of powers - the Supreme Court is now editing (rewriting) the law, a power reserved for Congress.
Also for shame: Neil Gorsuch (Trump appointee) defected to join the left.
Negative. They continue to show their bias, and we continue to wake the sheeple up. The bigger their battle cry, the less power they actually have... the storm is coming this Nov my friend, keep your head up!
Everyone always fails to recognize that the "sheeple" are made up of mostly fresh illegal immigrants that dont care about american values and have come here to change it completely.
I firmly disagree. We might be waking people up slowly, but it's hard when they've been indoctrinated their whole lives. 95% of children today are brainwashed, and even if 40% defect over to us, we're still fucked
I wonder what the hell is the point of these federal protections anyway. Most employment is at will. You can be fired at any time, for any reason. If an employer truly wanted to get rid of you for being a part of X demographic, they'll find some reason to get rid of you.
I don't understand the point of this at all. It just foments resentment afaic.
Now, if you have a fully bearded employee working in a position where they personally interact with customers, and they start wearing dresses, lipstick, and deer antlers you can't even say "Hey, um... can you not wear the antlers? Our clients have stopped buying from us since you started prancing like a deer instead of walking, and eating grass and bushes in front of them."
They'll just say "Fuck you bigot! I'm a deer-kin! I am a deer that was born in the wrong body. I sexually identify as a deer!"
These old fucks we have for judges have no idea how degenerate and absurd our society has become. They just opened up Pandora's Box. They though that Trans was as extreme as it gets and they have no idea about the other 100 some-odd genders that exist now.
Anyone who doubted the slippery slope about gay marriage needs to wake the fuck up. There are already queers dressing as dogs being led around on leashes at gay pride events with children petting them. It will get worse. And fast.
Exactly, it's like Yuri Bezmenov described that they give a platform and power to people who are against society and trying to destroy it. The militant degenerates aim is to destroy society.
I just saw Fox News and the ramifications of this decision is what I am wondering at the moment. I am not at all surprised by Roberts but Gorsuch now will be a Democrat vote for the LGBT. Ginsberg and Roberts cannot be gone soon enough.
They just legislated from the bench in the most flagrant, overt, unapologetic way they could. There is now precedent to literally rewrite the words of laws.
They just legitimized and codified "trans" into the law of the land.
We should all just identify as trans anytime someone discriminates against us for being Trump supporters, white, or anything else the left hates and sue the shit out of them.
This is not for the SCOTUS to decide. Who the hell gave SCOTUS the right to determine whether Gender Theory is valid or not. This isn't rule by law. This is a unilateral usurping of power that makes all of us legally responsible for upholding an occultish academic theory regarding gender and biological sex.
Who are the six judges that voted for this insanity?
The main reason why most Christians voted for Trump was to prevent the SCOTUS from doing crap like this. So now the SCOTUS went and did it. It's not Trump's fault. He didn't know Gorsuch was gender queer but sheesh. I'm still voting for Trump but when and if the Republicans take back the House and Senate and Trump wins, they better do something to check the SCOTUS' unwarranted privilege.
I'm the person who constantly tries to get people to think of the legal and constitutional ways to stop leftism. Who tries to quiet any talk of knocking heads. Who tells friends not to even mention the boogaloo.
Now I'm ready. This is a 100% violation of human rights. The government has absolutely NO authority whatsoever to tell people whom they can and cannot fire based on behavior. Or tell a pres-school for example that they must not fire a mentally ill employee!
This is the most outrageous ruling yet - and aided by supposedly "conservative" justices!
What the hell has happened to our country? I don't think it can be fixed anymore. We're going to have to take it back by force or surrender to clownworld. And you have no idea how much I hate to say that.
I don't see any upside of this order, other than potentially it will force goat fuckers to be legally compliant or revoke their 503(c) status. But that is way, way too much in future.
Since first posting in light humor about 6 hours ago on this thread... have been mulling over the problematic issues sure to arise: whether its an orderly/assistant in a Dr's office or hospital... or a chaperone/supervisor at a children's camp... or a dressing room attendant at a department store (if there are any left post-Covid) - those are service providers to the public/customers. It is not unreasonable to think that a customer of said enterprise might have a preference to the service provider in that regard. So... a female customer in the dressing rooms or the gynecologist's office or her daughter's day camp requests a female who identifies as a female - and the manager accommodates the request - but it happens so often there is really no need for the continued employment of Robert(a). What next when the lawsuit is filed?
Whenever there is vaccum in political power, judiciary tends to start taking over. This is vaguely analagous to the "priest" class in ancient times taking over in times of political turmoil / weakened central power.
This is not because Trump is not doing the right things. This is because the entire "swamp" has weakened the authority of the govt.
The solution is for Trump to win the presidential election, and "Trump republicans" / MAGA republicans to win the house and the senate and then fix this legally. When that happens, the judiciary will just withdraw and not risk a confrontation.
Otherwise, if you do not get strong political power, expect a continuation of judicial activism / executive / legislation more and more.
Who cares? To my understanding this just prevents you from firing a transgender person. Why is that bad? Just seems like a way to prevent legitimate discrimination to me.
If they have a legitimate chromosomal abnormality warranting being transgender that's fine to me. I do agree gender dysmorphia needs to be addressed and is the cause of a rise in the transgender movement. I just dont support discrimination if it doesnt affect a person's ability to do the job. Can't judge a person based on "their community". Judge an individual fairly and don't let their condition be the cause of discrimination.
I've said this elsewhere, but I agree with both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and I don't think this is a bad ruling... in fact I think it might be the most red pilled ruling we've seen in a long time. Wait for the big reveal or read the bottom of my post to see what the red pill actually is.
I 100% agree with you/Kavanaugh that this should have been the job of Congress to add protected classes explicitly by law. It would have been very easy for them to do... especially in '09-'10 when Obama had a supermajority, but alas Democrats really don't give a shit about trans rights. They knew that once they give trans people their rights then there's no reason for trans people to support Democrats anymore lol.
That said, I also agree with Gorsuch's ruling... which is a secret red pill.
Gorsuch's opinion basically has a couple examples. Let's say person X is attracted to men. If you're ok with X being female but not male then this is sex discrimination.
Now let's pretend that person X dresses up and identifies as a woman. If person X is female and you're ok with that but not if X is male then that is also sex discrimination.
But guess what this also means? It means that this entire case is based on the premise that SEX is a protected class. It relies on recognizing that males and females are biological characteristics ingrained in our DNA. And at least until a male cuts up his penis into a vagina and vice versa then it also means that males = penises and females = vaginas.
We have ALL seen leftists getting enraged for calling trans women males even though yes they are biologically male. They can no longer get upset about this imo (they will anyway but they don't really have any right to anymore). Their sex status is literally what is protecting them now because there is no protected gender class.
Damn. That's an interesting interpretation. A tranny can only file for sexual discrimination if he admits that he is biologically a man.
Checkmate
Extremely good explanation. With that in mind, the ruling seems like a huge win even though it was not the expected outcome.
I'm so pissed off about SCOTUS. Even when we should be winning, we don't.
We need a way to deal with this wickedness other than constitutional amendment.
Ya'll can all bitch and scream about Convention of States but, it's what is needed right now.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials."
https://conventionofstates.com/
It's the only power left to us.
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
I hear this a lot but, this is not how a Convention of States works. In case you haven't noticed, it's been a LONG time since we've had one because it is so hard. What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
You're correct, it's not true (though I question how far I trust even "True Americans" at this point).
But you forget just how dirty the other side is. They don't need to get their own people in place, they only need to threaten or blackmail the ones in place enough to swing votes. Why do you think the Republicans are so cowed? It's because things really are that bad -- much worse than people think. The CIA and FBI were completely weaponized to control politicians.
Bingo. 100%.
It isn't writing a new constitution, it's how the people can directly propose amendments. Those proposed amendments get voted on.
In theory, yes. But when you put people in a room throwing everything wide open, you open the door to anything.
New Amendment: "In recognition that this document is 250 years out of date, We The People declare all prior parts to be obsolete, and the following Constitution to be in effect."
Do I expect that to pass? No. But did I expect the Democrat Party to grow into a deranged combination of Fascism and Communism? No. All I know is that when people think about a constitutional convention, they have this fantasy that it will all be compromised of patriotic, "correct thinking" Americans that care about Liberty and Freedom. Well, it won't. Maybe most of them will be -- but maybe not.
I won't get into specifics, but there a LOT of conservatives, even around these parts, who aren't on-board with what I consider Liberty and Freedom (and no, I'm not talking Libertarian-style liberty and freedom).
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see new Amendments to curtail Federal power. But people seem to forget that we don't need to wait for a convention to propose new Amendments. Don't wait around for a wet dream of a Constitution Convention. Start proposing and let's see if we can get them passed.
Nice idea. How mad would they be to have marriage be returned to man and a woman by a convention of states.
See? We already have a problem. I don't care which adults get married and the government shouldn't be deciding that. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it's none of anyone's business.
This is why I trust NO ONE other than myself to decide my own liberty and freedom. The idea of giving idiots the power to change MY Constitution? Even with safeguards? Fuck that. People want to force their own opinions on everyone else far too easily. Start with "mind your own damn business" and let's go on from there.
SCROTUS
There's a way, but it's messy and bloody. These fucks want to take over and destroy this country in a bloodless coup, but we can't let them have it that easy.
The time has come.
I wonder what would happen if President Trump told SCOTUS to review some 2A cases, then if they refused to review them under their own rules? President Trump could then remove the justices who won't review them and replace them. When people complain that isn't constitutional, Trump could point out that justices not following or upholding the constitution as it is plainly written is unconstitutional. President Trump could keep Thomas and Kavanuagh and fire the rest of them.
"Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas joined forces on a dissent Monday charging their Supreme Court colleagues with a "decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment."
"The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous 'justifiable need' or 'good cause' restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a 'good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property' violates the Second Amendment," he said. "By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard."
Such a split between the circuits is generally one of the most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to take up a case, and is actually laid out in the tribunal's official rulebook. Rule 10, which discusses what the court takes into consideration when deciding to hear a case, says the court is likely to step in when "a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter."
https://archive.isE5yci
https://www (dot) foxnews.com/politics/thomas-kavanaugh-lament-decade-long-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment
Be careful what you wish for. The way Supreme Court is ruling right now, it's just going to go against the constitution anyway.
That's why they would be removed, thrown into prison and replaced by POTUS. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. If SCOTUS is tearing it apart, then POTUS must defend against that. If the justices are exceeding their authority in destroying the Constitution, POTUS is more than justified in exceeding his authority to protect the Constitution. This particular subject is also a question that scholars have pondered on, but never settled, nor is there any definitive ruling.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Well, I think it's on par with Marbury v. Madison, from the executive's perspective. I don't know how it would go, but honestly, what choice does he have? Seems as good a way as any to begin the war.
There is a way to make change and the left has been showing you how for the past couple of weeks.
So go smash up and loot stuff?
One of which was appointed by Trump. Shame!
Should have known when they didn't go full Kavanaugh on him that he would be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He's compromised. I'm sure Obama's "secret database" contained something on him or his family. Look at his face when he walks out to vote on health care. Looks like he's been crying.
There is a "john roberts" in Epstein's flight logs...
I guess Americans are shown once again that there is no need for a legislature when the judiciary simply rewrites the law. Title VII explicitly disallowed discrimination based on five aspects: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. No where is "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" listed.
The law has not been amended by Congress, and signed by the President. It has been updated by SCOTUS without the political input of the people. The Constitution loses again. If the American public wants to make discrimination based on "sexual orientation" or gender identity illegal then pass a law.
This is ridiculous, and as Alito points out in his dissent, it will lead to many issues such as how the 14th amendment will now be interpreted in regards to these categories.
Is there any way this ever gets overturned? Once again, the right isn't allowed to go within 10 feet with their opinions but the left is allowed to jam their trans dick in your face with aplomb.
Congress can repeal or amend the Civil Rights Act.
So, no, there is no way this ever gets overturned.
The tree is thirsty.
My comment was in reference to doing it through the courts, but yes, if people are ready to move to that phase of things, then there is still an opportunity to overturn it.
Yeah
And the argument from the Left has been "sex and gender are two different things!"
Now the SCOTUS has said "Sex, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are inextricably linked and fall under the umbrella of 'sex' legally." Now the left will use that for their legal benefit, all while maintaining that gender is completely different from sex.
Already posted this - https://thedonald.win/p/FzBIwlz7/another-supreme-court-backstab-a/
Have an obligatory slowpoke.jpg.
This ruling is terrible and represents a dark day for America.
It falsely equates biological gender (as given by assortment of X and Y chromosomes) with perceived orientation (dictated by psychology, not physical/scientific fact).
Worse, it opens the door to a flood of bogus lawsuits that will demand Christian small businesses hire LGBTs in the name of diversity. Those that fail to comply will be sued out of business and bankrupted. Do you think they will vote for Trump again after seeing the consequences? The First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion have just been shredded.
Title VII also was never intended to cover mental disorders and psychological conditions - rather, it prevents discrimination based on something you're born with and unable to change. This terrible ruling violates separation of powers - the Supreme Court is now editing (rewriting) the law, a power reserved for Congress.
Also for shame: Neil Gorsuch (Trump appointee) defected to join the left.
tHesE ComMENtS ARe Hate nd BGOtTed. wiLL SuE
tHe LeFt iS Hateful nd BGOtTed aGaiNSt Christians.
It doesnt matter, he could win the house and senate and it doesnt matter. The country is LOST! Sanctuary cities ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND NOW!!!
We'll just have t have sanctuary cities where we practice actual freedom and government according to the genuine constitution.
Hell yes! Im for that!
Shouldn't need a sanctuary city for that. Too bad there will 99% never be a civil war here
You better review the cases. We are doomed.
Finally, I get my rights as the attack helicopter I identify as....
Ha. I'm a black trans attack helicopter and my rights supersede yours.
I'll see your blackness and raise you with my indigenous native American card - I'm an Apache attack helicopter.
Native-ality!
Negative. They continue to show their bias, and we continue to wake the sheeple up. The bigger their battle cry, the less power they actually have... the storm is coming this Nov my friend, keep your head up!
Having the WH and even the Congress will not fix the country. Politics is downstream from culture.
Politics is culture now, if you haven't noticed.
Everyone always fails to recognize that the "sheeple" are made up of mostly fresh illegal immigrants that dont care about american values and have come here to change it completely.
It is over until people are ready to take up arms and take lives. I see zero evidence of that.
I firmly disagree. We might be waking people up slowly, but it's hard when they've been indoctrinated their whole lives. 95% of children today are brainwashed, and even if 40% defect over to us, we're still fucked
This is it. This is the day that I concede it is done. God help us all.
Our country has been through worse!
Our country has never been this demoralized.
The people who went through the Great Depression would like to have a word.
They hated America and wanted to erase its history and culture?
Trump gave us Gorsuch.
LOL. Our country is literally burning to the ground, but "the other guy would be worse."
I never said cede to Biden. I'm simply saying we're not doing enough, and voting for "not pure evil" isn't going to get us where we need to be.
You're talking about Trump; I wasn't necessarily. Do you disagree that we're still heading in the wrong direction?
It doesnt matter BIDEN couldnt have fucked us worse!
This hurts Trump more than it helps. We were promised conservative justices and instead we got this shit.
Yep. It's time. It's beyond time.
I wonder what the hell is the point of these federal protections anyway. Most employment is at will. You can be fired at any time, for any reason. If an employer truly wanted to get rid of you for being a part of X demographic, they'll find some reason to get rid of you.
I don't understand the point of this at all. It just foments resentment afaic.
Resentment is useful for demoralization and destabilization.
I see crap like this and I'm like: "Well, maybe it's okay if the country fractures and I live in a conservative shard."
They sue for discrimination and companies have to PROVE that is not the case. It turns the concept of innocent until proven guilty on its head.
Congratulations, everyone!
Now, if you have a fully bearded employee working in a position where they personally interact with customers, and they start wearing dresses, lipstick, and deer antlers you can't even say "Hey, um... can you not wear the antlers? Our clients have stopped buying from us since you started prancing like a deer instead of walking, and eating grass and bushes in front of them."
They'll just say "Fuck you bigot! I'm a deer-kin! I am a deer that was born in the wrong body. I sexually identify as a deer!"
These old fucks we have for judges have no idea how degenerate and absurd our society has become. They just opened up Pandora's Box. They though that Trans was as extreme as it gets and they have no idea about the other 100 some-odd genders that exist now.
Anyone who doubted the slippery slope about gay marriage needs to wake the fuck up. There are already queers dressing as dogs being led around on leashes at gay pride events with children petting them. It will get worse. And fast.
Exactly, it's like Yuri Bezmenov described that they give a platform and power to people who are against society and trying to destroy it. The militant degenerates aim is to destroy society.
Yes, they do.
This is war.
Their owners have told them to push for full satan.
I know, that was my inspiration. The most ludicrous bullshit I could think of.
What this a previous case decided during the Obama era of two terms??? When did this occur??
Apparently Trump blocked that statute. This is revenge. Shows anyone can be bought and sold. VOTE VOTE VOTE this Nov!
I just saw Fox News and the ramifications of this decision is what I am wondering at the moment. I am not at all surprised by Roberts but Gorsuch now will be a Democrat vote for the LGBT. Ginsberg and Roberts cannot be gone soon enough.
Do you seriously think the Senate RINOs will allow Trump to have 2 more nominations even if Roberts and Ginsburg resign?
They're too busy helping the far-left shred American history and politicize the military.
You’re right Pede and I’m just asking for as much feedback from our community because it appears the SCOTUS will do nothing to help us.
Ramifications:
They just legislated from the bench in the most flagrant, overt, unapologetic way they could. There is now precedent to literally rewrite the words of laws.
They just legitimized and codified "trans" into the law of the land.
Extrapolate from there.
We should all just identify as trans anytime someone discriminates against us for being Trump supporters, white, or anything else the left hates and sue the shit out of them.
Voting didn't work.
https://conventionofstates.com/
This is not for the SCOTUS to decide. Who the hell gave SCOTUS the right to determine whether Gender Theory is valid or not. This isn't rule by law. This is a unilateral usurping of power that makes all of us legally responsible for upholding an occultish academic theory regarding gender and biological sex.
Who are the six judges that voted for this insanity?
Kinda like Judge Sullivan.
The judiciary has fallen.
It was a lie to begin with. You're just finally seeing the truth.
The main reason why most Christians voted for Trump was to prevent the SCOTUS from doing crap like this. So now the SCOTUS went and did it. It's not Trump's fault. He didn't know Gorsuch was gender queer but sheesh. I'm still voting for Trump but when and if the Republicans take back the House and Senate and Trump wins, they better do something to check the SCOTUS' unwarranted privilege.
I used to be a heterosexual male. I now identify as a lesbian transgender woman.
We are gonna be living in a "truthless" society.
Tom Fitton...
Better than half of the clowns we have there now
A male-presenting transgender lesbian, as TFM suggested years ago
I felt the same way during the “super majority”. There has to be consequences for these bastards, but what???
I'm the person who constantly tries to get people to think of the legal and constitutional ways to stop leftism. Who tries to quiet any talk of knocking heads. Who tells friends not to even mention the boogaloo.
Now I'm ready. This is a 100% violation of human rights. The government has absolutely NO authority whatsoever to tell people whom they can and cannot fire based on behavior. Or tell a pres-school for example that they must not fire a mentally ill employee!
This is the most outrageous ruling yet - and aided by supposedly "conservative" justices!
What the hell has happened to our country? I don't think it can be fixed anymore. We're going to have to take it back by force or surrender to clownworld. And you have no idea how much I hate to say that.
we will restore sanity some day. Maybe after a bloody war. But we will.
Alito is legitimately underappreciated.
Omega gay
I don't see any upside of this order, other than potentially it will force goat fuckers to be legally compliant or revoke their 503(c) status. But that is way, way too much in future.
Who needs representation when we can have rule from the bench?
No. Just the illusion of it.
Since first posting in light humor about 6 hours ago on this thread... have been mulling over the problematic issues sure to arise: whether its an orderly/assistant in a Dr's office or hospital... or a chaperone/supervisor at a children's camp... or a dressing room attendant at a department store (if there are any left post-Covid) - those are service providers to the public/customers. It is not unreasonable to think that a customer of said enterprise might have a preference to the service provider in that regard. So... a female customer in the dressing rooms or the gynecologist's office or her daughter's day camp requests a female who identifies as a female - and the manager accommodates the request - but it happens so often there is really no need for the continued employment of Robert(a). What next when the lawsuit is filed?
Sadly, six people just determined that male and female don’t actually exist.
Does anti discrimination also protect straight white males? Because that's my sexual orientation
Sex has never meant sexual orientation. The running gag is the answer to the sex question is "yes please." Are they denser than Homer?
Whenever there is vaccum in political power, judiciary tends to start taking over. This is vaguely analagous to the "priest" class in ancient times taking over in times of political turmoil / weakened central power.
This is not because Trump is not doing the right things. This is because the entire "swamp" has weakened the authority of the govt.
The solution is for Trump to win the presidential election, and "Trump republicans" / MAGA republicans to win the house and the senate and then fix this legally. When that happens, the judiciary will just withdraw and not risk a confrontation.
Otherwise, if you do not get strong political power, expect a continuation of judicial activism / executive / legislation more and more.
Fitton is wrong from what I'm reading of Gorsuch's ruling
Who cares? To my understanding this just prevents you from firing a transgender person. Why is that bad? Just seems like a way to prevent legitimate discrimination to me.
If they have a legitimate chromosomal abnormality warranting being transgender that's fine to me. I do agree gender dysmorphia needs to be addressed and is the cause of a rise in the transgender movement. I just dont support discrimination if it doesnt affect a person's ability to do the job. Can't judge a person based on "their community". Judge an individual fairly and don't let their condition be the cause of discrimination.