I can understand why you think that, but you have to look at it on a broader scale, thinking ahead as to how the precedent he set will affect things in the future. And remember, when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964, he did so on Constitutional grounds, whereas LBJ supported the CRA after opposing both the CRA of 1957 and 1960.
Because the CRA of 1964 WAS un-Constitutional. Because it essentially bans freedom of association by forcing integration by mandate. All of these little immigrant enclaves, like Chinatowns, etc. are essentially illegal per that law, except it never gets enforced against anything but "white spaces".
What Gorsuch actually did with the transgender ruling was put a poison pill in the CRA of 1964 which will eventually unravel the entire thing. Because by negating any biological essentialism to identity on the basis of sex, for which there IS a biological component, he also set the stage for the same kind of anti-discrimination case to eventually come forward in regards to trans-racialism Think the Rachel Dolezal affair.
Because under American legal framework, if it can't be argued that a person is a particular identity based on biological sex characteristics, then it certainly can't be argued that they are a particular race or ethnicity because of any characteristics based on a more rigorous scientific standard that biological.
The issue just hasn't been raised, yet. But it will, eventually. And when white people start arguing that they are black and so therefore can't be discriminated against based on race, then the CRA will essentially lose all form and function. The very proponents which sought to codify transgenderism as a protected class will understand how they played themselves, and they will seek to repeal the law themselves.
Sometimes, when a law is built upon faulty logical framework, the only way to bring it down is to allow the contradictions to play themselves out until the law collapses upon itself. So, the ruling that you are talking about was a 6-3 ruing anyway, meaning Gorsuch alone wouldn't have been able to stop it. But by writing the majority opinion the way he did, he essentially laid the groundwork to end all of this madness in the long run.
Gorsuch in one of his first acts legislated transgenderism into existence as a protected class
I can understand why you think that, but you have to look at it on a broader scale, thinking ahead as to how the precedent he set will affect things in the future. And remember, when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964, he did so on Constitutional grounds, whereas LBJ supported the CRA after opposing both the CRA of 1957 and 1960.
Because the CRA of 1964 WAS un-Constitutional. Because it essentially bans freedom of association by forcing integration by mandate. All of these little immigrant enclaves, like Chinatowns, etc. are essentially illegal per that law, except it never gets enforced against anything but "white spaces".
What Gorsuch actually did with the transgender ruling was put a poison pill in the CRA of 1964 which will eventually unravel the entire thing. Because by negating any biological essentialism to identity on the basis of sex, for which there IS a biological component, he also set the stage for the same kind of anti-discrimination case to eventually come forward in regards to trans-racialism Think the Rachel Dolezal affair.
Because under American legal framework, if it can't be argued that a person is a particular identity based on biological sex characteristics, then it certainly can't be argued that they are a particular race or ethnicity because of any characteristics based on a more rigorous scientific standard that biological.
The issue just hasn't been raised, yet. But it will, eventually. And when white people start arguing that they are black and so therefore can't be discriminated against based on race, then the CRA will essentially lose all form and function. The very proponents which sought to codify transgenderism as a protected class will understand how they played themselves, and they will seek to repeal the law themselves.
Sometimes, when a law is built upon faulty logical framework, the only way to bring it down is to allow the contradictions to play themselves out until the law collapses upon itself. So, the ruling that you are talking about was a 6-3 ruing anyway, meaning Gorsuch alone wouldn't have been able to stop it. But by writing the majority opinion the way he did, he essentially laid the groundwork to end all of this madness in the long run.
Interesting! Thanks for the reasoned response.
Besides mine I bet it opened a lot of other eyes that don't belong to lawyers, as well.
The whole idea of "precedent" is bullshit.
It's just a game of musical chairs for the faux conservatives.
There are enough of them to take turns trashing the constitution without taking too much heat for just the one little mistake they made.
Judge's don't legislate. Can you elaborate?
We know they're not supposed to. Eever heard the expression "legislate from the bench"?
Sorry for NYT link but here ya go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html
If you prefer:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in-gorsuch-opinion-supreme-court-rules-gay-transgender-workers-protected-by-title-vii