Constitutional Expert Jeff Utsch on the Supreme Court over stepping their bounds when it comes to their latest decisions.

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

You are listening to the conservative circus. I. Am Your Ringmaster James To hairs looks everywhere. We go everywhere. We look around our our country. We see that the republic is under attack whether we're talking about the protesters. The street you look over was happening in in in Seattle with this Chaz. Chop Mess you look at what's happening with the with the Supreme Court. You're wondering you know what in the world is going. Going on in the center ring of the conservative circuits, we have Jeff. Lucia's an instructor at the leadership and Freedom Center in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. He's also my partner with the constitutional conversations and Jeff. We had to Supreme Court decisions this week. That I find very disturbing because I is further example that the supreme court that are different branches of government are not staying in their lane. Are you seeing the same thing? All. James T. it's been a rough week. You know and this is one of the fallacies that we can't think that the most important thing that we need to worry about his supreme court nominees through the president, because no matter what they seem to be off the rails in this ruling, bostock's versus Clayton County, which applies does title seven of the nineteen sixty four civil rights at apply to gays and transgenders, and the important thing to think about. It's not up to the Supreme Court decide. Should discrimination be allowed for gays and transgenders? It's what does the law. What does the law say? Say and This is kinda crazy. Because a title seven does say no discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. So this case is purely about what the sex music. What did it mean? What does it mean now and we see Justice Gorsuch who, really in my opinion right here, James T loses a lot of credibility, not all credibility, but most of his credibility on what a textualist should be, and absolutely he's no originalist. That's for sure, because in this opinion James He. Really you know it's twenty seven pages I've read the whole thing. It boils down to this. He says look. Sex discrimination matters because in the workplace sex discrimination applies the gays and transgenders because in the workplace if you have two people. and. They both love a man in the workplace, so these two people love a man. If one of those people that love this man is a woman in the other one is a man than the man could be discriminated against okay based on his sex. So that basically is his argument, and I give it a maybe two on a one to ten scale, but when you come back. And read what he said in here also, so let's see what he says. He says that, but then he says this those who adopted this gorgeous Gorsuch, those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated. Their work would lead to this particular result. Likely. They weren't thinking about many of the acts consequences. In my response to Gorsuch is what have you thought about? Some of your acts consequences to make the only Jhansi to me is deeper than that. He freely admits right there that when this was considered in the nineteen sixties. That the that. Things were thought of different way. I mean when we talked about sex in the nineteen sixties. We didn't think about transgender or whatever whether LGBT? If we think about any of that stuff, so why is it? You know if he's going to beat originalist? Wouldn't he have to look at how things were defined how they were looked at back then he took that word section. He expounded on it to mean something nonsense. Go I and and. Since what does this have to do with the constitution? Does the Constitution speak to? How of gay couple or or Mansi is a woman in the workplace? What are we doing? Well he's He's definitely out of his lane. And if your listeners only read his opinion, they might be swayed a little bit, but then you know I. Give his argument one or two Alito comes back with Thomas Dissenting, and then all rights dissenting opinion to that really is a nine or ten just crushes. What Gorsuch writes! The first thing out of the box Lido says is there's only one word for what the court has done today legislation. Is that clear? They came out blazing any says basically he cuts gorsuch down that this is irresponsible. That we are hijack. Hijack, he says short cutting the legislative process. Because right now there are bills in the Senate and the House and the but different bills. That are deliberating. What's going on right now? And it's taking into account how this might affect other areas of our lives that we are not thinking about right now. He said this is absolutely. Irresponsible were taking away these legislative process. It's not what we're supposed to be doing. We have fifty years of jurists pure prudence on this. This isn't something that just Jack in the box jumped out of the box James. T fifty years of jurisprudence on what this means, and it's very clear. That there's a difference between how sex was defined sexual orientation gender, those kind of things and so it really is kind of ridiculous James T.

Coming up next