Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards. This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system. (1/x)
While the question of whether to amend Title VII to add more categories may be a difficult one as a matter of policy, the question of the Court’s role on this issue was an easy one: Allow the people to decide the issue through their elected representatives. (2/x)
@JCNSeverino Looks like using "textualism" as a cover for bigotry didn't work this time. Sad for you.
@JCNSeverino Yes, a man with a lifetime appointment and guaranteed salary of more than $250,000/year even after he retires felt the need to cater to college campuses and editorial boards. This makes complete and total sense.
@JCNSeverino As if Scalia didn't help legislate an entirely novel and unfounded personal right to bear arms from the bench in Heller.
@JCNSeverino It does at first glance look bad. Hear me out. Placing legal constraints on anyone means just that. I've seen corporations jump all over legal matters and clauses. The btq part of of lgbtq have just worked themselves into a corner.
@JCNSeverino Terrible take of the day!!! I’m wondering if you actually read the opinion?
@JCNSeverino Aww, the bigots are big mad that they can’t discriminate against LBGTQ Americans. I feel so bad for you. 🤣🤣🤣