The Supreme Court

It depends on the weather. The SCOTUS oftentimes invents its own “Oral Law” when it suits the liberal establishment they seek to serve. For example, nothing written in the Constitution remotely says or even implies abortion must be legal. (This is, but, one example of many available.) Nevertheless, when the left-wing “Justices” decided they wanted such a law, despite their not being elected to Congress which is constitutionally empowered to write laws, they simply decreed it by dreaming it up as Oral Law.

Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning, rather than a so-called notion of an “everchanging Constitution” that allows every leftist judge to rule whatever he wants based on his feelings of what he dreams the Constitution should mean today, not what the authors of the Constitution (and statues, for that matter) intended when writing the laws.

Joseph
“Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning”

Scalia was no different. He expanded the definition of “arms” in the second amendment when it suited him (see Heller) He suddenly opposed States rights in Bush V Gore. He expanded free speech to corporations When clearly none of these were the “constitutions’ original meaning”

Not getting as much notice today was that the Court refused to hear Trump’s challenge to California’s Sanctuary law, under which the State refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement activities. This is another example of the hypocrisy of conservatives, as the right of states to refuse to have their police agencies commandeered into enforcing federal law has been well respected ever since the Tenth Amendment was passed in the 1790s. But Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution. In this case the Court refused to be Judicial Activists even though the Trump Administration wanted it to be.

Interestingly, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the federal government the power to restrict immigration, only to regulate naturalization. The Founding Fathers would never have imagined the racist national origins quota system, but the courts upheld it anyway.

RE, if you are referring to the toeva ruling it had nothing to do with Constitutional Law. It was an interpretation of a law passed by the Congress and signed by POTUS. Justice Gorsuch said that he personally thinks that it is a bad law but he has no choice but to affirm that it says what it says. If you are interested in reading a complete report google “HOW JUDGE GORSUCH JUDGES” on the website of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which is a conservative organization).

Akuperma, FYI the 14th Amendment was subsequently adopted. The accepted interpretation of the “Due Process” clause is what is called “substantive due process” – certain rights, in particular those in the Bill of Rights, are protected from government interference. The “Equal Protection” clause prevents states form improperly discriminating against classes of citizens. What is proper (e.g. a minimum age for driving) and what is not (e.g. a religious test for public office) is a matter of judge-made law although they look at social norms in their generation (thus Brown vs Board of Education overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson). This actually is a continuation of the English Common Law system, which is analogous (l’havdil) to our responsa literature. This contrasts with the Civil Law system of the Continent where law is strictly defined by codes. In American law schools the main point of study remains the case law system. civil law

N0m: I’m glad you agree that if an employee expresses deep racism and xenophobia off-hours, off premises, on his own time on social media and in public, the employee should not penalize him for doing things that don’t impede the employees ability to do his daily job.

reb eliezer-“Your conservative judge Gorsuch interpreted it giving rights to toiva.”
exactly he betrayed the conservatives and sided with the leftist liberals! but you should be happy because your a leftist and he sided with you!!

nomesorah-” CJ Roberts is setting up a legal basis for people to be obligated to a human standard, no matter how they self identify.”
thats not the supreme courts job their not legislators!! their job is to interpret the law and any reasonable person knows that the 1964 federal law banning employment discrimination based on race/color/religion/gender does not refer to lgbtq
gorsuch is a traitor!!

According to Gorsuch’s flawed Office Xmas Party sevarah, if I show up to work wearing blackface and get fired, can I sue them because had I been Black they wouldn’t have cared?

n0mesorah- where did you get this stupid idea from that i “want them to be able to act however they feel like and claim that is their ‘identity’? Why is it an affront to you if they do not get fired?” if you read my posts i said and proved the opposite!! i dont how you got that idea into your head

In 2004 Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the first Supreme Court Justice blah blah blah………. nobody cares about this

Dear Som,
This law puts the obligations of society back on these people. They cannot do whatever they want and claim ‘I identify like this’ or ‘I was made this way’. Anything that a man and a woman would get fired for, they could also be. This should be precedent for many bizarre legal battles that are coming out. A cornerstone of normalcy was finally set down. Be happy about it. I think one day it will overturn same ex marriage.

“Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning, rather than a so-called notion of an “everchanging Constitution” that allows every leftist judge to rule whatever he wants based on his feelings of what he dreams the Constitution should mean today, not what the authors of the Constitution (and statues, for that matter) intended when writing the laws.”

In addition to my above comment it is worth noting that The Supreme court unanimously voted to change what the original intent of the Constitution clearly was , with regard to faithless electors.
This idea that only “leftist judges” ascribe to an ever changing constitution is demonstrably false.

Listen to the incredibly incoherent briefing today by the Presidents “press secretary” who generally reads from a prepared script no matter what the question. She declared “victory” based on the timing of when the Trump financial data will be released (not until after the election) , misquoted the federalist papers regarding the need to insulate the President from legal process which she calls
“harassment”, accused the Court majority of pandering to the “mob”, and failed to explain how a president who has played over 130 rounds of golf in 3 years (averaging about 4 hours plus travel time) , is “too busy” to respond to legal actions by government prosecutors’.
.

Dear Anonymous,
Did I miss something? The court ruled that the president is not above the law. Nothing changed for you and me.

nOmesorah -“Maybe the major parties could require a candidate to release his tax returns as a condition to run. It would have saved the Republicans a lot of trouble.”

Why make New laws, when the DemonCrats don’t follow the ones that are already there?
It was illegal for Obama to be the President of the US. But no one, besides a few even cared!

Nom, I was laughing at the “reasons” given for needing to see his tax returns. Reb Eliezer somehow left off being a covert Mets fan and eating gebrocht on Pesach Sheni. This is the same DA who has bungled important prosecutions ( or wouldn’t prosecute ) and refuses to prosecute looters and the vandals who desecrated St Patricks Cathedral .

nOmesorah -“A lot of people cared. And they cared way too much. Obama was in his second term.”

That’s exactly My point – they only Care about Politics, namely their Party, not about the Law.
So there’s No point to make something a policy or a Law, when people do what they want anyway.

I agree that in 1964 nobody would have imagined the CRA being interpreted the way Gorsuch did. But he interpreted it the way it was written. In other words no equivalent of an oral Torah. Then he did the same thing in the Oklahoma Indian case. Expect more such radical decisions from Gorsuch.