| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| | '''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]]. In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref> Gorsuch repeatedly rules in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on those issues. Gorsuch, who was fed to [[Trump]] by [[D.C.]] [[Deep State]] types, wrote the concurrence in the 2023 [[affirmative action]] case that is being used by [[liberal]] [[colleges]] to terminate their pro-[[American]] legacy admission preferences.<ref>[https://www.aol.com/news/top-schools-begin-dropping-legacy-193220974.html Top Schools dropping legacy admissions.]</ref> | | '''Neil McGill Gorsuch''' (born August 29, 1967, age {{age|1967|8|29}}) is an [[Associate Justice]] on the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. Previously he served as a federal appellate judge. He was nominated by [[United States]] President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the passing of [[Antonin Scalia]]. In his first full Term on the Court, according to ''Reason Magazine'', Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref> Gorsuch repeatedly rules in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on those issues. Gorsuch, who was fed to [[Trump]] by [[D.C.]] [[Deep State]] types, wrote the concurrence in the 2023 [[affirmative action]] case that is being used by [[liberal]] [[colleges]] to terminate their pro-[[American]] legacy admission preferences.<ref>[https://www.aol.com/news/top-schools-begin-dropping-legacy-193220974.html Top Schools dropping legacy admissions.]</ref> |
| | | | |
| | + | Gorsuch the authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020). This set the precedent -- without any textual basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution. |
| | + | |
| | + | At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the “ministerial exception” recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2012). Two cases now pending before the Court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction can be considered to be “ministers.” 54 But even if teachers with those responsibilities qualify, what about other very visible school employees who may not qualify for the ministerial exception? Provisions of Title VII provide exemptions for certain religious organizations and schools “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on” of the “activities” of the organization or school, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-1(a); see also §2000e-2(e)(2), but the scope of these provisions is disputed, and as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection. |
| | + | Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting). |
| | + | joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references: |
| | + | *[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act] |
| | + | *[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''. |
| | Gorsuch was "[[pro-choice]]" and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159</ref> | | Gorsuch was "[[pro-choice]]" and told Senator [[Susan Collins]] that he would not overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' simply because there was a 5-4 majority to do so, as reported by ''Politico'':<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-charm-offensive-selling-democrats-235159</ref> |
| | | | |
| Line 79: |
Line 86: |
| | | | |
| | On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations. Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument. | | On the [[Fourth Amendment]], Gorsuch alone espouses a view that it should be reinterpreted based on property ownership, rather than privacy expectations. Litigants in Fourth Amendment cases, including the one decided by the Supreme Court in June 2018, do not typically assert such an argument. |
| − |
| |
| − | On June 15, 2020, Gorsuch joined the liberal wing of the [[Supreme Court]] in voting (along with [[John Roberts]]) to write [[transgenderism]] and "sexual identity" into the twelfth title of the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]<ref>Two references:
| |
| − | *[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/15/bostock-v-clayton-county-scotus-rules-6-3-that-gay-trans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/# Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act]
| |
| − | *[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law]</ref> in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]''.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |