Join INGunOwners For Free
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Can We Trust Rule Of Law? SCOTUS To Decide Soon...

    Key Question in Detroit Funeral Home Case at Supreme Court: Can We Rely on the Law?

    The fate of a century-old Detroit mainstay hangs in the balance before the U.S. Supreme Court, but not likely for any reason you’d guess. In fact, once you know the broader implications of the case, you’ll realize why you should follow its outcome closely.


    After all, the outcome in G.R. & R.G. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioncould have a huge impact on workplaces, schools, athletic fields, and even women’s shelters, not just in Michigan, but all over the nation.


    Harris, which I argued before the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, raises a crucial question: Can Americans rely on the law as it’s written, or must we live in fear that it could change at the behest of unelected government officials?


    Since 2013, Harris Funeral Homes and its owner, Tom Rost, have been the target of a lawsuit that aims to redefine “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity” and punish the fifth-generation funeral home in the process.


    In 2007, the award-winning funeral home hired a biological male, Anthony Stephens, as a funeral director. Funeral directors are the face of the business, working closely with grieving families. For nearly six years, Stephens abided by the funeral home’s sex-specific dress code, which is consistent with the EEOC’s Compliance Manual.


    Then, in 2013, Stephens told Tom that Stephens planned to begin dressing and presenting as a woman while interacting with grieving families at work. Tom was concerned for Stephens, as he is for all of his employees. He was also concerned about the grieving families he serves, whose needs Tom’s family has prioritized for generations.


    Since Stephens’s proposal would have violated the agreed-upon dress code, Tom decided it was not going to work. It wasn’t long before Tom found himself defending his position on the opposite side of a courtroom from the federal government and, later, the ACLU.


    They sued Tom to get a court to rewrite the law—to change the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “gender identity.” But Tom shouldn’t be punished for relying on the law as it’s written. Unelected government officials don’t have the authority to change a law that Congress has adopted. If the courts give them that power, none of us can rely on what the law says.


    And what about the wider implications of redefining “sex” to include “gender identity”?


    For starters, this shift—a decisive departure from the public meaning of “sex” when Congress adopted the law—could allow boys identifying as girls to compete in women’s athletics.


    In Connecticut, two boys who identify as female have taken 15 girls’ track-and-field state championship titles in the past two years. When one parent raised concerns with government officials, she was told her daughter had the right to participate but not to win.


    Redefining sex also jeopardizes free speech, parental rights, and free academic inquiry. Worse still, it would open private spaces reserved for women. In Alaska, an Anchorage commission used this same line of thinking to try to force a women’s shelter to allow a man who claims a female identity to sleep mere feet away from women who have been raped, trafficked, or abused.


    In light of these unintended consequences, is it any wonder that Congress has declined at least a dozen times over the years to add on terms like “gender identity” to existing federal law? That’s why the ACLU and others have turned to unelected officials to achieve their desired goals.
    So keep an eye on what the Supreme Court decides in Harris Funeral Homes. After all, your freedom to rely on what the law says—and much more—may very well depend on the outcome of a case that started in Detroit.


    https://townhall.com/columnists/john...e-law-n2555623

  2. #2
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    A bit less... melodramatic treatment at SCOTUSblog:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...nt-commission/

    Every SCOTUS case decides a rule of law. That's not a special quality inherent to this case.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  3. #3
    Expert

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    A bit less... melodramatic treatment at SCOTUSblog:
    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...nt-commission/

    Every SCOTUS case decides a rule of law. That's not a special quality inherent to this case.
    Yes But, if they rule for the funeral home then the law as written stands, if they go the other way they will have changed the explicit text to mean something different on a hot issue that congress will not touch. Then we as citizens have no confidence that laws will be upheld as written...

  4. #4
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    Yes But, if they rule for the funeral home then the law as written stands, if they go the other way they will have changed the explicit text to mean something different on a hot issue that congress will not touch. Then we as citizens have no confidence that laws will be upheld as written...
    As they tend to do, they will interpret the law as written (with insight from legislative intent, to the extent that can be derived).

    One side will say they did that. The other side will say that they didn't, and probably that they legislated from the bench.

    That's just the way these things go.

    You like Heller? Pretty close to the same deal.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  5. #5
    Expert MarkC's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    As they tend to do, they will interpret the law as written (with insight from legislative intent, to the extent that can be derived).

    One side will say they did that. The other side will say that they didn't, and probably that they legislated from the bench.

    That's just the way these things go.

    You like Heller? Pretty close to the same deal.
    I have to agree; pretty much any case that gets heard and decided by SCOTUS fits. When I saw the original article was from townhall.com, I recognized that it would be slanted, and probably in a way that generally comports with my views. Generally. I avoid the issue or viewpoint focused "news" sites for any kind of analysis, and watch for "spin."

  6. #6
    Grandmaster

    User Info Menu

    One (hyphenated) word

    Bump-stocks
    Dormant U.S.Marine/ NRA Benefactor-Life

  7. #7
    Master AmmoManAaron's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    Yes But, if they rule for the funeral home then the law as written stands, if they go the other way they will have changed the explicit text to mean something different on a hot issue that congress will not touch. Then we as citizens have no confidence that laws will be upheld as written...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mgderf View Post
    One (hyphenated) word

    Bump-stocks

    ^^^What these guys said^^^

    There was no ambiguity in the language of the law passed by Congress in either of the above instances.

    The current situation is nothing like Heller.

    "2016: The year that hackers became more trusted than government or reporters."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge