Gorsuch is has problem with his legislative fundamentalism. Like Baptists that don't believe "This is my body" literally but some obscure passage allows them to practice religion with rattlesnakes, he is stuck "interpreting" the 1964 Civil rights act that prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of sex, even though gay people were not invented in 1964 and the Legislature certainly did not write that to protect those people once they were being discriminated against.

http://www.politico.com/magazi...such-textualism-229850

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-­related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

-------------------------

Shoddy article. There is no contradiction at all. "Because of [an] individual's ... sex" meant on the basis of whether one is a man or a woman. A simple case of statutory interpretation. That says it all. Easy case.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

What it means? No. Gorsuch is a man who says he is not there to replace what he thinks with the plain text for what it says. He's in a catch 22.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

What, like the 2nd amendment and military style rifles?



-------------------------
I was right.

The Law should NOT hinge on what they meant when enacting legislation. It has to be what the law actually says. So the letter of the law is extremely important. The article says that the 1964 law prohibits discrimination against a person on the basis of sex. BUT the law defined exactly what they meant by 'On the basis of sex'. AND they added that nothing in this law shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.

-------------------------

How many people thought they'd see the US government arguing in favor of discrimination against a person based on their sex, in the year 2019?

And the arguments in favor clearly demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of the scientific facts regarding the common occurrence of intersex and all naturally occurring sexual ambiguities.

Holy shit we've gone backwards.

I'd guess Drump and all the regressive party.

It's what they wanted all along: To revert back to when they felt "safe" to dress up in their white hoods and desroy all those who they felt offended their flakey sensitivities.

-------------------------
GOP:

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project