04/06/2017

A Federal Court Rewrites The Civil Rights Act

David French, National Review

For the sake of social justice, judges decree that ‘sex’ now means sexual orientation.

At what point do we declare that the judiciary is facing a credibility crisis? When do we finally decide that laws passed by Congress have no meaning and that judges are able to rewrite them at will, often using the most laughably specious reasoning?

Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unilaterally revised that the Civil Rights Act’s ban on employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” so that it now includes a ban on sexual-orientation discrimination as well. Never mind the actual words on the page. Never mind the common meaning of the words then or now. All that matters is the right result — the triumph of the social-justice “super clause” that is hidden in every law, regulation, or constitutional provision.

The majority option — crafted by Diane Woods — insults our intelligence. She pretends to engage in standard statutory interpretation, attempting to divine what that devilishly complex word “sex” means. Here’s an actual sentence:

It is neither here nor there that the Congress that enacted the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and chose to include sex as a prohibited basis for employment discrimination (no matter why it did so) may not have realized or understood the full scope of the words it chose.

Let’s translate: Congress had no idea that the word “sex” was so darn broad. Fortunately, however, she knows what it truly means. But the opinion moves from comedy to farce when she attempts to “prove” that sexual-orientation discrimination really is sex discrimination by posing a hypothetical: What if the lesbian woman in the case, Kimberly Hiverly, was really a straight man? A lesbian woman loves women. A straight man loves women. Thus (and this is the reasoning, I kid you not), if an employer treats the lesbian differently from the straight man, it has to be because of sex, not sexual orientation. After all, it’s sexist and stereotyping to believe that women shouldn’t love women.

This is pure sophistry. Obviously it would be sex discrimination to treat gay men differently from lesbian women, but when you treat gays and straights differently, that’s sexual-orientation discrimination. This isn’t a hard concept, but the goal isn’t to convince; it’s to rationalize.

Read full article



You May Also Like:

Trump To Order Investigation Into FBI/DOJ Surveillance Of His Campaign Justin Caruso, The Daily Caller

H.A.L.P.E.R. Spells Game Up for Obama's Spies Clarice Feldman, American Thinker

Stefan Halper Agent Provocateur – In His Own Words… sundance, The Last Refuge

Mnuchin Says US Has Deal With China To Cut Trade Deficit, Will Hold Off On Tariffs [Watch] Joseph Weber, Fox News

Protect Us from Such ‘Victories’ Don Boudreaux, Café Hayek

Al Sharpton: Royal Wedding Proves White Supremacy ‘On Its Last Breath’ Ben Kew, Breitbart

Hillary Clinton Says She's Not Over The 2016 Election, Pulls Out Russian Hat During Yale Speech [Watch] Naomi Lim, Washington Examiner

Study: Voters Worried About Political Correctness Flocked To Candidate Trump Robby Soave, Reason

Jonathan Swift In A White Suit Matthew Continetti, The Washington Free Beacon

Marijuana Arrests Are Not Racist: Some Neighborhoods Have Heavier Enforcement Because They Have More Crime, And Complaints Seth Barron, New York Daily News

Andrew Sullivan: Obama’s Legacy Is Dead And Trump Killed It streiff, RedState

Starbucks Is About To Woke Their Way Out Of Business Jazz Shaw, Hot Air

Elizabeth Warren Boldly Pledges To Never Take Money From A Group That Has Never Donated To Her [Watch] Timothy Meads, Townhall

Jordan B. Peterson Isn't Criticizing Women When He Discusses "Agreeableness" Sean Malone, Foundation For Economic Education

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Join Our Email List



section

Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

section

In Search Of History

The Reagan Tax Cuts Worked

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

 

-- Daniel J. Mitchell,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 3.93%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 21.5%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central April Year-to-Year: 2.46% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.9%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]

section