Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 13, 2022

[Last night], Justice Samuel Alito had harsh words about the 2020 opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, that said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which prohibits sex-based discrimination - extends to gay and transgender workers. "It is inconceivable that either Congress or voters in 1964 understood discrimination because of sex to mean discrimination because of sexual orientation, much less gender identity," Alito said. "If Title VII had been understood at that time to mean what Bostock held it to mean, the prohibition on discrimination because of sex would never have been enacted. In fact, it might not have gotten a single vote in Congress."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Donne

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-13 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Show us where the Gay man touched you, Sam; and the pregnant woman.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-13 10:56 AM | Reply

Sam Alito, fee-fees hurt over abortion, is doubling down. That's what fascists always do, they double down. No self-examination. No qualms that they've become destructive and grandiose. They just double then triple the pain.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-13 10:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"If Title VII had been understood at that time to mean what Bostock held it to mean, the prohibition on discrimination because of sex would never have been enacted. In fact, it might not have gotten a single vote in Congress"

I dunno, Sam. Maybe everyone would have voted for it. My time-traveling and mind-reading act is at least as good as yours.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-13 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's breathtakingly ignorant to not understand that anti-discrimination laws based on how individuals are perceived by those choosing to discriminate against them would obviously include personal information or realities of those same individuals that have nothing at all to do with their qualifications and abilities to perform the actual work they're applying for.

Basically to my ears, Alito is openly saying that Congress would not have passed anti discrimination laws if they knew the laws would be applied to LBGTQ persons as well. So Alito is saying by proxy, that unless specific laws are passed to illegalize specific itemized discriminatory conduct, Americans suffering from said discrimination should have no legal recourse before the courts.

This man is an affront to human evolution and the very spirit of our Constitution as a living document, instead of a chain forever tying citizens to our less enlightened and experienced past. I guess liberty is just a nebulous concept in Alito's feverish mind unless a legislative majority deems it so, regardless of Constitution's charge that unenumerated rights are retained by citizens even when not mentioned in the document itself.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-13 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Nazis really struggle with the idea of equal treatment under the law.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2022-05-13 11:42 AM | Reply

#5 they're basically saying unless a law or the Constitution explicitly names something, it's not protected.

It's how they'll ensure certain groups are returned to second class status because they'll be the ones determining who is and who isn't protected.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-13 12:36 PM | Reply

They just double then triple the pain.

#3 | POSTED BY ZED

The beatings will continue until your morals improve.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-05-13 01:00 PM | Reply

Scalia-lite can go ---- himself.

#9 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-13 01:01 PM | Reply

In a way, I feel like Alito has come out of the closet. We now all can clearly see who and what he is. His vile hatred and disregard for people different from himself is now plainly on display, and he does not deny it. In a way, I imagine this must be very liberating for him. He can finally be the repulsive pile of vomit in broad daylight like he has always dreamed of.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-13 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Good thing moderate dems ignored the more intelligent liberals and didn't fix the court when they had the chance.

Now gay marriage is next.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 01:57 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly, I do not blame Dems for trying to be temperate and even-handed when we have been in control. But I do blame the Dems for being ------- and not fighting back now that the corrupt repulsive discriminatory nature of the GOP agenda has been made clear to everyone. Now is the time for rage. Now is the time to pull out the stops. Our most basic freedoms, in fact our very democracy, is under attack and in imminent danger. No degree of outrage or anger is unwarranted.

#12 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-13 02:04 PM | Reply

Moder8 is so angry he's going to bong some latte.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-13 02:06 PM | Reply

Hello?! Alito?! The 15th Century is calling...

#14 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-05-13 02:18 PM | Reply

"It is inconceivable that either Congress or voters in 1964 understood discrimination because of sex to mean discrimination because of sexual orientation, much less gender identity," Alito said. "If Title VII had been understood at that time to mean what Bostock held it to mean, the prohibition on discrimination because of sex would never have been enacted. In fact, it might not have gotten a single vote in Congress."

Regardless, is that a significance when determining whether or not to allow an older law (civil rights act) should simply be amended to include more protected classes?

I say no.

Just because it's likely true that the civil rights act of 1964 wouldn't have passed if it applied to LGBTQ and transgendered people that doesn't mean we have to re-pass a new civil rights act every time we intend on modifying it to current societal norms and acceptances.

Good grief how many laws would have to be re-argued and passed again if we intended on extending the reach of an old law based on what changes that have occurred since it's original passage?

Isn't it a more efficient way to get where we want to go anyway?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-13 02:27 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly, I do not blame Dems for trying to be temperate and even-handed when we have been in control

#12 | Posted by moder8

You should.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 02:31 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly, for a long time now you have been very clear and forthright about your belief that it is necessary for Dems to play the political game just as repulsively and dirty as the GOP has if we want to have any chance of prevailing on issues that are most important to us. I understand and appreciate the clarity of your position. But I disagree with it. However, I also am aware that I will not persuade you, and you will not persuade me. So I choose to simply register that disagreement and respectfully let it go. At least with you. (But maybe not with certain other posters who I perceive as being dishonest or disingenuous.)

#17 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-13 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Speaksoftly, I do not blame Dems for trying to be temperate and even-handed when we have been in control. But I do blame the Dems for being ------- and not fighting back now that the corrupt repulsive discriminatory nature of the GOP agenda has been made clear to everyone. Now is the time for rage. Now is the time to pull out the stops. Our most basic freedoms, in fact our very democracy, is under attack and in imminent danger. No degree of outrage or anger is unwarranted.

#12 | POSTED BY MODER8

It is long past time for rage, to pull out the stops. that time was long ago.

Now is the time to mitigate the disastrous consequences of republicans doing what they want and dems allowing it.

Those that were paying attention recognized this a LONG time ago.

Like Global Climate Change, it's too late, now will be the time to live or die with the consequences.

Truth Hurts

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-13 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly, for a long time now you have been very clear and forthright about your belief that it is necessary for Dems to play the political game just as repulsively and dirty as the GOP has if we want to have any chance of prevailing on issues that are most important to us. I understand and appreciate the clarity of your position. But I disagree with it. However, I also am aware that I will not persuade you, and you will not persuade me. So I choose to simply register that disagreement and respectfully let it go. At least with you. (But maybe not with certain other posters who I perceive as being dishonest or disingenuous.)

#17 | Posted by moder8

You've misinterpreted my comments then.

I dont think dems should be trying to prevent repubs from voting. Or have them wiped from voter roles. I dont think dems should collude with hostile foreign powers to defeat republicans. These are republican tactics that we dont do and shouldnt do.

But if dems dont use the 2 years they get power every decade to defend democracy, and repubs use their 2 years in power to destroy it, then democracy is dead and there's nothing left to vote for.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 03:05 PM | Reply

"then democracy is dead and there's nothing left to vote for."

What you've just described is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Believe there is nothing to vote for, and democracy will die.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-13 03:10 PM | Reply

What you've just described is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Believe there is nothing to vote for, and democracy will die.

#20 | Posted by Danforth

Prove me wrong. What did everyone march and donate and fight to get dems elected for? Some repaired bridges and repaved roads?

The HAVENT protected democracy. They HAVENT brought justice to trump. They HAVENT fixed the illegitimate court. They COULD have done any of these things. But moderates gotta moderate. So now fascists get to take control and keep it forever. This was the last chance.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 03:22 PM | Reply

Established law and precedence are the main line of court in that both lawyers and judges quote previous rulings and judgements for the basis of current disputes as well as rulings.

Justice Alito now wants to become one of the ones that overrules congress to have law state what he feels is how it should be, not what the laws have represented historically. If he continues to get his way through all these rulings, he'll wind up creating lawlessness as no one in any court will have precedence, as it is slowly destroyed one ruling at a time.

While it is not up to him alone in any one ruling, court packing done by McConnell has done it's work.

#22 | Posted by BBQ at 2022-05-13 03:35 PM | Reply

Diamond Joe is right--LGBTQ folk are next. Soon after will be those with dark skin, and immediately after, Jewish people, perhaps not all chosen by the SCOTUS, but by those who will feel empowered and emboldened by the SCOTUS.

Note to Justice Thomas: you are no longer safe, according to a call coming from inside the chambers of the Supreme Court...

#23 | Posted by catdog at 2022-05-13 04:27 PM | Reply

Time for generations of judicial over reach to be corrected. These issues should have been resolved legistlatively. We may end up in the same place, but this time we'll do it right.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-05-13 04:54 PM | Reply

These issues should have been resolved legistlatively.

They were. See the 9th Amendment and it's language on unenumerated rights. Your own personal autonomy and equality should never be up for a vote from people who aren't you.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-13 05:01 PM | Reply

Time for generations of judicial over reach to be corrected. These issues should have been resolved legistlatively. We may end up in the same place, but this time we'll do it right.

#24 | Posted by visitor_

"Fixing judicial overreach" = imposing the will of a minority of religious extremists on everyone else.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 05:09 PM | Reply

Marriage isn't an enumerated right. Killing babies isn't an enumerated right.

#27 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-05-13 05:27 PM | Reply

"Marriage isn't an enumerated right."

Equal rights is.

Why should I have the right to enter into a specialized contract conferring superseding rights and LOTS of advantages, if gay couples cannot?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-13 05:34 PM | Reply

Marriage isn't an enumerated right. Killing babies isn't an enumerated right.

#27 | Posted by visitor_

They fit under the LIBERTY section of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-13 05:34 PM | Reply

Marriage isn't an enumerated right. Killing babies isn't an enumerated right.

POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2022-05-13 05:27 PM | REPLY

Neither is stupidity yet here you are.

#30 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-13 05:44 PM | Reply

They fit under the LIBERTY section of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

That would be the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Those words are not part of the U.S. Constitution.

But seeing as how the DOI preceded and set the foundational rationales and driving principles behind the formation of the United States, the words have always been spiritually tied to the Constitution with its defined Bill of Rights.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-13 05:48 PM | Reply

Which is also part of the 14th Amendment Tony..

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-13 05:52 PM | Reply

Are unions with more than two members covered in the "liberty" clause?

#33 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-05-13 05:55 PM | Reply

Thank you Laura, I stand corrected.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-13 05:56 PM | Reply

No prob

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-13 05:59 PM | Reply

"Are unions with more than two members covered in the "liberty" clause?"

No one is stopping you from writing that entire canon of law addressing proportional rights. Knock yourself out. Then lobby your Congressional representatives.

Until then, you've got nothing but smokescreen.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-13 06:38 PM | Reply

"That would be the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Those words are not part of the U.S. Constitution."

While not law aren't they important a foundation and guiding principle of the law and it points to the intent of our founding fathers in creating the constitution in the first place.

Certain unalienable rights ARE self evident (to most of us)like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness ( but there is no guarantees of ever catching up with it!). The constitution was supposed to help guide us in interpreting the constitution and in procuring those rights for us and our posterity. That's why they spelled it out in the preamble so that there should be no question as to the intent and what we were and are trying to accomplish as a nation.

As you said. They are spiritually tied to the constitution. Well put. The bill of rights just proves that those inalienable rights needed to be spelled out as necessary for the more corrupt and or deplorable or just plain ignorant members of society.

It's been what.. 230 some years since the last update? Do we need to update the bill of rights for the more spirituality deficit amongst us? Scary thought.

But I do believe that even if the First Amendment didn't exist, for example, every American would still have the right to communicate their opinions and practice their faith. The Founders wrote down those rights just to make sure to remind everyone (including future insurrectionists) so that they understood the liberties they actually already had.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-05-13 07:04 PM | Reply

Correction to #37

The "declaration" was supposed to help guide us in interpreting the "constitution" and in procuring those rights ...

Doh. That's what I get for typing on tiny iPhone screen.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-05-13 07:08 PM | Reply

Evangelicals, Christian Nationalists, the Moral Majority, whatever you call them or they call themselves, all have been working toward Conservative control of the SC for 30+ years. Now they have it, and they're going to use it to bludgeon to death every hard-won social right and liberty which doesn't fit their religious worldview. It's not just about one issue, it's about molding the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.

The Senate has grown from 26 to 100 since the 1st Congress.

The House of Representatives has grown from 65 to 435.

The President's cabinet has grown from 5 to 15.

The Supreme Court began with 6, has had as many as 10, and has stagnated at 9 since 1869.

Time to add 2 or 4 more justices to the SC. More justices means a broader sample of opinions, broader representation of the nation's interests, and less extreme swing left or right. Let's make it happen.

Abortion Rights Protests all over the country today. Get out and support women's rights.

#39 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-14 10:01 AM | Reply

Aliyo is the poster boy for term limits for SC Justicea, He needs to go along with Thomas and both of Trynp's appointees,omas. We need a Supreme Court not rooted in the 1950's. We need an Amendment yo make it possible.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-15 05:19 AM | Reply

Aliyo is the poster boy for term limits for SC Justicea, He needs to go along with Thf Trunp's appoinyees. We seriously need N AMRNDMRNT to allow the people to overrule the SC.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-15 05:24 AM | Reply

Actually, there was much about the Warren Court that can be admired. The current iteration, packed with religious bigots? Not so much.

#42 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2022-05-15 05:39 AM | Reply

"Marriage isn't an enumerated right. Killing babies isn't an enumerated right.

r's
Both things are none of your business. We need to rename the Repiblican Party as The Busy Body Party, Up in EVERYONE'S PERSOMAL BUSINESS. cHRISTIAN CULT IS YOUR ENEMY. kNOW THAT, NEVER TRUST ANY OF THEM.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-15 06:45 AM | Reply

"It is inconceivable that either Congress or voters in 1964 understood discrimination because of sex to mean..."

It is inconceivable that either a Congress or voters in 1791 understood the right to bear arms to mean everyone has the right to a weapon that can fire one round every 1.25 seconds accurate up to 600 yards but Alito supports the crazy idea.

#44 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-05-15 11:18 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort