Changes

}}

}}

}}

}}

'''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]], and was previously a federal appellate judge on the [[Tenth Circuit]]. He was nominated by President [[Donald Trump]] to the Supreme Court to fill [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]]'s vacancy.  In his first full Term, 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 [[Washington, D.C.|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]].<ref>Gorsuch was previously a federal appellate judge on the [[Tenth Circuit]].</ref> In his first full Term Gorsuch had a more [[liberal]] voting record than even the socially liberal Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref name="Reason">, according to the impartial ''Reason Magazine'': https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref> Gorsuch authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020), and has also ruled in favor of the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[illegal aliens]], giving [[liberal]]s an unearned majority on these issues.  Gorsuch, who was fed by [[Washington, D.C.|D.C.]] [[Deep State]] types to Trump for nomination, 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 authored the decision that unleashed [[lawfare]] for the [[transgender movement]], in ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (June 15, 2020).  This has been called the new "''[[Roe v. Wade]]''," because it set the precedent -- without any [[textualism|textual]] basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution. “A Constitutional Right to Gender Surgery? An appeals court uses the ''Bostock'' ruling to usurp state law, in a new version of ''Roe v. Wade'',” wrote the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' in a May 11, 2024 editorial.  As the chief architect of transgender rights, Gorsuch subsequently "never asked a question, which is highly unusual" when Tennessee's law banning transgender operations on children was argued before the Supreme Court on December 4.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html</ref>

Gorsuch's ''Bostock'' pro-transgender decision is called the new "''[[Roe v. Wade]]''," because it set the precedent -- without any [[textualism|textual]] basis in law -- for [[homosexual]]s and [[transgender]]s to sue for alleged discrimination against employers, private schools, and virtually any institution. “A Constitutional Right to Gender Surgery? An appeals court uses the ''Bostock'' ruling to usurp state law, in a new version of ''Roe v. Wade'',” wrote the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' in a May 11, 2024 editorial.  As the chief architect of transgender rights, Gorsuch subsequently "never asked a question, which is highly unusual" when Tennessee's law banning transgender operations on children was argued before the Supreme Court on December 4.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html</ref>

The “ministerial exception” recognized in ''Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC'', 565 U. S. 171 (2012), provides some protection against transgender lawfare for religious schools. Provisions of Title VII exempt 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; as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection. ''Bostock v. Clayton Cty.'', 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting).

The “ministerial exception” recognized in ''Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC'', 565 U. S. 171 (2012), provides some protection against transgender lawfare for religious schools. Provisions of Title VII exempt 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; as interpreted by some lower courts, they provide only narrow protection. ''Bostock v. Clayton Cty.'', 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1781 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting).