Hit enter after type your search item
Wzy Word

HERE ARE THE WORLD'S NEWS

Breaking Down The Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling | Morning Joe | MSNBC

/
/
/
145 Views
img

NOT JUST WHAT THEY SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING GAY OR TRANSGENDER THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN BY TRUMP-APPOINTED JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH

THE MAJORITY FOUND THAT TITLE 7 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX ALSO APPLYIE TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND TRANSGENDER STATUS THE JUDGE WROTE, AN EMPLOYER WHO FIRES AN INDIVIDUAL FOR BEING HOMO SEXUAL OR TRANSGENDER FIRES THAT PERSON FOR TRAITS OR ACTIONS IT WOULD NOT HAVE QUESTIONED IN MEMBERS OF A DIFFERENT SEX SEX PLAYS AN UNNECESSARY AND DISTINGUISHABLE ROLE IN THAT DISTINGUISHABLE ROLE IN THAT DECISION, EXACTLY WHAT TITLE 7 FORBIDS THE JUDGES THAT DECENTED SAID NO ONE IN 1964 WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT DISCRIMINATION ON SEX WOULD BE ON GENDER IDENTITY JOINING US NOW PRESIDENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN ALFONSO DAVID AND PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER JEFFREY ROSEN

GOOD MORNING, IT’S GREAT TO HAVE YOU BOTH WITH US ALFONSO LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU THEY’RE CALLING THIS A LANDMARK DECISION, IT IS, A LONG-TIME COMING SINCE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU, TO THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO AMERICA? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, WILLIE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY STOOD ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY

SIDE OF HISTORY WHEN IT DECLARED A — >> ALL RIGHT MIKA, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE’VE LOST AN ALFONSO’S AUDIO HERE >> ABSOLUTELY WE CAN TRY AND ADJUST THAT

THESE ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE TOUGH THERE WERE OTHER SURPRISES FROM THE COURT TEN APPEALS THAT LOOKED TO BROADEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO INCLUDE OWNING A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE AND CARRYING A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC WERE DENIED ARGUMENT ONE WAS A CHALLENGE TO A NEW JERSEY LAW THAT REQUIRES A PERSON TO SHOW A JUSTIFIABLE NEED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A GUN PERMIT IN THEIR DECENT, JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AND BRETT KAVANAUGH CALLED THE STANDARD A, QUOTE, ONEROUS BURDEN ON A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

BUT KAVANAUGH, ALONG WITH TRUMP APPOINTEE, KNEEL GORSUCHNEIL GOR WITH THE MAJORITY IN DENYING THE APPEAL OF A CALIFORNIA SANCTUARY LAW THE COURT CHOSE NOT TO INTERVENE IN CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT’S REFUSAL TO ASSIST FEDERAL AGENTS IN TAKING CUSTODY OF IMMIGRANTS AS THEY ARE RELEASED FROM JAIL THE COURT ALSO DECIDED NOT TO HEAR CASES PERTAINING TO THE COURT CREATED DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, WHICH PROTECTS POLICE OFFICERS FROM LAWSUITS FOR THEIR ONDUTY ACTIONS >>> JEFFREY ROSEN IT IS HARD SOMETIMES FOR LAYMEN AND WOMEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPREME COURT, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, PEOPLE SAYING, I WASN’T SURPRISED BY JUSTICE GORSUCH’S DECISIONS, HE LIKES GAY PEOPLE THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS

HE’S — HE LOOKED AT THE TEXT, HE INTERPRETED IT BASED ON A LIFETIME OF JUDICIAL REASONING IT’S THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHERE, FOR INSTANCE, PEOPLE THAT WANT EXPANSIVE GUN RIGHTS DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS VERY CONSERVATIVE WITH A SMALL C WHEN IT COMES TO BEING DEFERENTIAL TO STATES DINING ROOMETERMINING HOW GOING TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, BE IT A BAN IN CONNECTICUT OR IN NEW JERSEY SORT THROUGH WHAT YOU SAW YESTERDAY AND HOW, WHEN IT CAME TO THE — THE CULTURE WARS, WHETHER IT’S GAYS, GUNS, SANCTUARY CITIES THAT THIS PROVED IT WAS NOT CONSERVATIVE WITH A BIG C BUT PRETTY CONSERVATIVE WITH A SMALL C >> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT

AND IT’S SO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUSTICES ARE DECIDING THESE CASES IN TERMS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL METHODOLOGY, NOT THEIR PARTISAN POLITICS THAT’S WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH’S DECISION WAS SO INSPIRING IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF PRINCIPLED TEXTUALISM HE SAID, CHANNELLING JUSTICE SCALIA, WE LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF THE LAW AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT WAS PASSED IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED IT IN 1964 DIDN’T EXPECT IT TO APPLY TO GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE, WE’RE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE TEXT REGARDLESS WHERE IT LEADS AND THE DECENTERS SAID IT’S UP TO CONGRESS TO MAKE THE CHANGES, NOT THE COURT

SO THERE WAS A BAIT WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE CLOCK ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET TEXT AND IT WASN’T ABOUT WHETHER YOU LIKE GAY PEOPLE OR DON’T LIKE GAY PEOPLE AND JUSTICE GORSUCH SAID SOMETIMES THERE’S AN ELEPHANT HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT AND THIS IS A MOMENTOUS CHANGE AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE IT SAME THING FOR THE GUNS OR THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DECISION THERE IT WAS JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS WHO WROTE A DECENT SAYING I THINK QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW THAT CREATED PROTECTIONS FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY HE DOESN’T WANT TO DO THAT AS A POLICY MANNER, BUT THE LAW COMMANDED IT

IT WAS A HISTORIC DAY YESTERDAY WE SAW IN ALL OF THESE CASES JUSTICES REACHING CONCLUSIONS THAT MAY HAVE CLASHED WITH THEIR POLITICAL PREFERENCES AND IT PROVIDES INSPIRATION FOR AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ON ALL SIDES OF THE AISLE WHO ARE HUNGRY FOR A VISION OF NON-PARTISAN REASON CHANNELLED BY OUR GOVERNMENT NOT LED BY PASSION YESTERDAY INSPIRING 6-3 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE A VISION OF A COURT LED BY REASON RATHER THAN PASSION >> AND YOU’RE EXACTLY RIGHT CLARENCE THOMAS DID THAT COMING FROM THE RIGHT ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS, SAYING, WAIT A SECOND, HOLD ON, NO THIS IS NOT — QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOES NOT MEAN THIS

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS MORE CLOSELY YOU’RE RIGHT, SAME THING WITH NEIL GORSUCH EVERYBODY CAN CALL THEMSELVES TEXTUALIST WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE WORD SEX, IN DECIDING WHETHER SEX HAD TO DO WITH GENDER OR WITH SOMETHING MORE JEFFREY IF WE CAN JUST — I WANT TO GIVE ONE OF MY FAVORITE EXAMPLES OF A COURT DOING THIS AND HAVE YOU TALK ABOUT IT EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T READ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

I REMEMBER BACK — I REMEMBER EVERYBODY BEING SHOCKED WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MADE THE DECISION HE MADE ON OBAMACARE AT FIRST I WAS STUNNED AND THEN I READ THE DECISION, I LAUGHED AND SAID THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE DECISIONS I’VE EVER SEEN AND IT IS IN LINE WITH JOHN ROBERTS’ JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY HE BASICALLY SAID IT, DON’T ASK ME TO DO FROM THE COURT, FROM THE BENCH, WHAT YOU CAN DO IN THE VOTING BOOTH NEXT YEAR YOU DON’T LIKE OBAMACARE, FINE

GO VOTE THAT’S YOUR JOB I’M NOT GOING TO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH I THOUGHT IT WAS BRILLIANT IF I’M TRYING TO EXPLAIN ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, EVEN IF THE OUTCOME WAS NOT THE OUTCOME, I WOULD DO THAT

I ALSO REMEMBER TALKING TO JEB BUSH WHEN JEB WAS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, JEB VERY PRO-LIFE I SAID, I KNOW A GUY WHO WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU, HE’S INTERESTED IN BEING ON THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HE SAID BB IS HE A CONSERVATIVE? YES, HE’S A CONSERVATIVE NO, IS HE CONSERVATIVE? I SAID WHAB DO YOU MEAN? IF HE’S PRO-LIFE, IS HE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW OR THE PRO-LIFE BELIEVES? I SAID, HE’LL FOLLOW THE LAW OKAY, I’LL TALK TO HIM

THAT’S WHAT BEING A JUDICIAL CONSERVATIVE IS, NOT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH FOLLOWING THE LAW >> THAT IS SO TRUE IT’S A CENTRAL POINT AND IT’S RIGHT ABOUT JEB BUSH YOU KNOW, JEB BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER, HE WAS SUCCEEDED BY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND OUR CURRENT CHAIR IS NEIL GORSUCH, WE HAVE LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

ALL OF THEM BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID, IT’S THE JOB OF JUDGES TO FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT LEADS THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT JOHN ROBERTS WAS DOING HE SAID, WE HAVE TO DEFER TO CONGRESS AS JUDGES AND IF CONGRESS WANTS TO CHANGE THE LAW, THEY CAN IF THERE’S SOME PLAUSIBLE HOLD FOR OBAMACARE, I’M GOING TO TAKE IT THAT’S WHAT NEIL GORSUCH SAID TOO, IT’S NOT UP FOR US TO DISLIKE THIS RESULT BECAUSE CONGRESS DIDN’T ANTICIPATE IT

THESE ARE THE WORDS THEY CHOSE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT WHERE THEY LEAD THERE’S A LOT OF CYNICISM ABOUT COURTS IN THE COUNTRY BUT WHAT WE’RE SEEING HERE IS JUDGES DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO FOLLOWING THE LAW WHERE IT LEADS LEIGHING IT UP TO THE POLITICAL BRANCHS TO MAKE IMPORTANT POLITICAL DECISIONS AND IT’S A RAY OF HOPE THAT IN THE PARTISANSHIP WE’RE SEEING CITIZENS CAN LOOK TO THE COURTS AS AN IDEAL OF NONPARTISAN ADJUDICATION WHERE JUDGES SEPARATE THEIR POLITICAL SENSES >> WE HAVE RECONNECTED WITH ALFONSO

OUR APOLOGIES ABOUT THE DISCONNECT THERE BUT I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER MOST PEOPLE THIS OPENED EYES, THEY SAID YOU CAN STILL BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY AND TRANSGENDER? AND THE ANSWER WAS YES HOW MONUMENTAL A DECISION IS THIS? >> THANK YOU, WILLIE THIS IS A LANDMARK DECISION FOR LGBTQ PEOPLE IN 29 STATES IN THIS COUNTRY THEY HAD NO STATE LAW PROTECTIONS

SO THIS DECISION IS A HUGE, HUGE DECISION FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE WORRIED IF COMING OUT AT WORK, WORRIED ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THEIR PARTNERS OR SPOUSES AT WORK, WORRIED ABOUT BEING THEMSELVES AND WE ARE PROUD OF THIS DECISION, AS JEFFREY SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES HONORED THE RULE OF LAW AND DECADES OF LEGAL PRECEDENT TO AFFIRM THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCRIMINATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW WORK IS SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN OUR LIVES IT ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE FOR OUR FAMILIES, TO PROVIDE FOR OURSELVES AND WORK IS ALSO PART OF OUR IDENTITIES IT’S KEY TO HOW WE AND THE WORLD AND SOCIETY SEES OURSELVES

SO THIS IS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL DECISION FOR US AND WE ARE REALLY, REALLY HAPPY WITH THE COURT’S RULING IT IS NOT THE END OF THE ROAD FOR US THIS RULING IS NOT THE END OF LGBTQ, THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY WE STILL HAVE TO PASS THE EQUALITY ACT WHICH IS CURRENTLY STILL STALLED IN THE SENATE

WE STILL HAVE TO ELECT A PRESIDENT WHO IS PRO EQUALITY ELECT CONGRESS, A SENATE THAT IS PROEQUALITY SO THEY CAN PASS THE EQUALITY ACT MANY PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THIS, BUT THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, IN CREDIT, IN EDUCATION THAT’S WHAT THE EQUALITY ACT WOULD DO IF I WALKED INTO A GAP DEPARTMENT STORE OR KNEENEIMAN MARCUS MARCUS, THERE’S NO LAUD THAT WOULD PROTECT ME BECAUSE I’M LGBTQ

THE EQUALITY ACT WOULD CHANGE THAT IF WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO WAS PRO EQUALITY THAT PRESIDENT WOULD SIGN IT INTO LAW WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO BUT YES, THIS IS A LANDMARK DECISION FROM YESTERDAY >> IN THEIR DECENT YESTERDAY JUSTICES ALITO AND THOMAS SAID, THIS IS LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GREY AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE PASS A LAW TO DO THAT, THAT’S NOT OUR JOB TO DO SO

WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? AS YOU POINTED OUT YOU’VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT IN 29 STATES WITHOUT MUCH LUCK? >> I THINK THAT’S A CON VIE YENT ARGUMENT FOR DECENT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF CASE LAW THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON IN SUPPORTING — THAT RELY ON TITLE — TO LGBTQ PEOPLE >> WE GOT SOME OF THAT PRESIDENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

Source: Youtube

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar