The week of June 15 will be regarded by some as welcomed and historic; others will consider it a week that will live in infamy. But there is one thing they will both agree on, like the TV show of the 1950’s, “That was the week that was.” The engine of this social upheaval, if you will, was the Supreme Court and rulings that many considered an overreach that defied constitutional prerogative, and were political in nature.
There were several cases before the court, but we’ll discuss two in particular here, one of which could possibly have catastrophic consequences. The justices delivered rulings that have caused great angst and disappointment in the conservative and constitutionalist communities, and caused the president to remark, “Do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
The Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California, involved rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The court struck down President Trump’s executive order that in effect would have reversed his predecessors that created the program. Then-President Obama admitted he had no constitutional grounds to enact the DACA program.
The DACA program gave 700,000 children, brought to this country when their parents entered illegally, a waiver to remain and work or continue their education without fear of deportation. President Trump issued his executive order, when the Congress failed to initiate legislation on immigration reform that would have granted the DACA recipients legal status.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined his liberal associates in writing for the majority, advised the Homeland Security Department to resubmit its argument for rescinding DACA, and admitted “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies, and that we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” Roberts went on to further say “Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what, if anything, to do about hardships to DACA recipients.”
The minority opinion, consisting of three conservative justices, was written by Clarence Thomas; “Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is, an effort to avoid a politically controversial, but legally correct decision.” Brett Kavanaugh issued a separate dissenting opinion. The president has stated that his administration will proceed with further efforts to rescind DACA.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the ruling was made that I believe, as do many others, will incur tremendous hardships on private institutions, especially religious. The court ruled that an employer cannot terminate an individual for being homosexual or transgender, and that this violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, color, race, sex and national.
The ruling joined two, who many thought were conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, with the four liberals on the court. In the 6-3 ruling, Gorsuch in writing for the majority said “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,” and “Sex plays a necessary and undistinguishable role in this decision, exactly what Title VII forbids”.
In speaking for the minority, three conservative justices, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, Alito wrote “The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous.” Alito continues, “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Here’s something to think about, is it at all conceivable that Justice Neil Gorsuch has been intimidated? Is he fearful of reprisals from the radical LGBT mob and their supporters in the media, Hollywood, and Democrats, if he ruled against this perversion? Let me remind you of the threat made by Chuck Schumer several months back to both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Consider this: a Christian school hires an individual as a teacher. At the time the school believes this person is a believer in the faith and will fulfill his or her obligation to instruct students according to the biblical teaching and tenets of Christianity. One day, the teacher, for purposes here a biological male, arrives at school dressed as a female, makeup and all, and requests as a transgender female that he/she be now addressed as Joanna.
Then one day the teacher arrives and advises the school that he/she is getting married to a transgender male, who is actually a biological female. Because of this ruling by the Court, the school will be compelled to accept, and cannot dismiss this individual. The school will have to inform impressionable young minds about this objectionable lifestyle, and they the students and their parents will have to deal with it. Also, the employer may be forced to cover treatments and surgeries for sex change in their medical plans.
This ruling also gives acceptance to biological males competing in women’s sports and using women’s restrooms and locker rooms. As you can see, the implications of this decision will have far-reaching and devastating repercussions for years to come. So what can be done to possibly counteract these dire circumstances?
Perhaps, in the case of religious institutions, an employer can have a new employee sign a binding contract that explicitly states the individual will in effect agree to abide by the religious edicts and teachings of the institution. One theologian expressed a method to possibly confront this conundrum, by designating all employees as ministers, assuring its religious edicts are not compromised, as clergy profess allegiance to the faith.
The Alliance Defending Freedom commented what most conservatives and constitutionalists know, “One of the most dangerous things about this ruling is that there seems to be this concession that the law is living and breathing, even among the textualists, and it’s okay to change it as we go.” This is a concept that most on the left espouses, but one would never have thought a jurist like Neil Gorsuch would acquiesce to. The Court also ruled in favor of Sanctuary Cities. All this spells disaster, if we don't act.