You are wrong nobody claims it was the original intent. You and others can repeat it as many times as you want and you will still be wrong. You might not agree it was the original intent but just turn on the TV and you will see others are claiming it was. This was a 6-3 not a 5-4 decision. I take them at their word.
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.
Just so their is no confusion. The majority of people that are upset is because of the result, not how they arrived at the result.
Source?
Source of someone claiming it was the original intent? To be clear, are you saying their and your position is that those who ratified it in 1964 explicitly meant to include gay and trans people?
Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. That is why it’s a “fundamental canon of statutory construction” that words generally should be “interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning . . . at the time Congress enacted the statute.” Congress alone has the institutional competence, democratic legitimacy, and (most importantly) constitutional authority to revise statutes in light of new social problems and preferences. Until it exercises that power, the people may rely on the original meaning of the written law.
AP dead or Obi dead?
I didn't read the 1964 law. I am going by what SCOTUS said. Now if you want a source listen or watch to any liberal news outlet.
Exactly. That’s a very popular liberal stance known as “the living Constitution”.
Which essentially means the judicial branch is legislating.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/politics/asylum-request-thuraissigiam-supreme-court/index.html
7-2 ruling including 2 liberal Justices
Is court now turning conservative?
Is the court now returning to be conservative?
Go away
I think I will stay right here. Lets not be a hypocrite now. We get a couple of rulings that many don't like and the court becomes liberal. Now we get a ruling you like so maybe it is swinging back conservative.There is another possibility the Kool-Aid drinkers didn't think of. They are ruling on the law!!!
In theory you’re right. When I opened this thread I was expressing surprise that the usually conservative leaning court ruled in a seemingly liberal fashion. Of course they’re interpreting the law, but there’s a reason SCOTUS nominations are among the most consequential decisions a President can make.
