Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has strayed from its constitutional authority in declaring what preexisting law is to actually making law itself.
Impatient with the pace of legislative action on amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation discrimination, the Supreme Court has rewritten the statute via interpretation. In Bostock v. Clayton County (a 63 decision), the Court held that Title VIIs prohibition of workplace discrimination based on sex now includes sexual orientation as opposed to the original 1964 meaning of biologically male or female in the law. Although many Americans may well agree with the policy result reached by the Court, all thinking persons should question whether six unelected lawyers have the authority to usurp the legislative role of Congress. There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation, dissenting Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
In the same week, the Court contrived a way to rescue the DACA program from President Trumps Executive Order to end it, even though DACA was unconstitutionally created by an Executive Order from President Obama. Similarly, the Court creatively avoided rulings that would have reinforced the Second Amendment and rescinded qualified immunity for police and other government officials. And all of this is reminiscent of how Chief Justice Roberts invented a way to rescue Obamacare in 2012 by unilaterally redefining legal terms.
This event features Independent Research Fellow William J. Watkins, Jr., who discusses with Independent Executive Director Dr. Graham H. Walker how Bostock and other decisions by the Roberts court are teaching Americans the wrong lessons. They discuss how rather than engaging in a debate, proposing legislation, and garnering votes, we are being told that the easiest way to obtain a desired policy result is to run to the judiciary to legislate unconstitutionally from the bench.