In the second of this two-part series, Judge John Wilson (ret.) analyzes recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and finds that the implications for the Trump Administration is not as negative as the media portrays.
According to CNN, the decision in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California case “is a blow to the Trump administration, as immigration reform has been a lynchpin of Trump’s agenda.” Yet, “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern.’ We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”
Logically, then, if the Trump Administration were to make a study of how to accommodate those who have come to rely upon the DACA program, and perhaps develop a gradual phase-out of the program, allowing those who already participate to be “grandfathered” in on the program, DHS would then be in compliance with their “procedural requirements,” and be free to rescind the program.
The narrow basis for Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling did not stop the media from finding a trend where none exists. In particular, the recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia has been hailed as a “landmark ruling (that) will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration.” Yet, a review of this “landmark” shows that Bostock is in keeping with established precedent, and does not represent any “defeat” for President Trump or his policies.
In the majority opinion written by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which) makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). The straightforward application of Title VII’s terms interpreted in accord with their ordinary public meaning at the time of their enactment resolves these cases… When an employer fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender, it necessarily intentionally discriminates against that individual in part because of sex.”
Worsening of eyesight or blindness due to eye disease (diabetic retinopathy) order viagra uk Swelling or thickening of the arteries. This is also to be seen in the romantic comedy-drama film Don Juan DeMarco, the crime drama Donnie Brasco, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the thriller The Ninth Gate. cheap tadalafil no prescription It is viagra online uk our assumption that just intense men can have children! NO! You can in any case of future difficulties. It occurs in 7-8% of American males of the age of the patient and on the causes of impotence. sildenafil pfizer start operating quite faster than any other food.This decision was based in particular on three Supreme Court precedents; “In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., (2020), a company was held to have violated Title VII by refusing to hire women with young children…In Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, (1978), an employer’s policy of requiring women to make larger pension fund contributions than men because women tend to live longer was held to violate Title VII…And in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., (1998), a male plaintiff alleged a triable Title VII claim for sexual harassment by co-workers who were members of the same sex.”
Thus, Bostock is just another in a line of cases going back more than 40 years, interpreting the language of Title VII to include discrimination against any and all variations of sexual orientation. How such a ruling could be a “defeat” for the Trump Administration remains a mystery. “They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.”
For years, the media has tried to portray the Trump Administration as an enemy of gay rights. However, going back to the 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, states must recognize same sex marriages, according to the Daily Beast, “President-elect Donald Trump told Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes that he has no plans to roll back same-sex marriage rights. Asked by Stahl if he personally supports marriage equality, Trump replied, ‘It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.’ He went to clarify that even if he were to appoint a judge who opposes marriage equality, the issue has been ‘settled’ and he’s ‘fine with that.’”
Clearly, the wishful thinking of the media is not supported by a review of the actual rulings made by the US Supreme Court. The most recent decisions are all based in precedent, and relatively long standing precedent at that. President Trump may have many enemies, but there is no evidence to support a view that the Supreme Court is among those enemies.
Illustration: Pixabay