After years of our side agreeing to the premise that courts have the final say over all political issues, in 2015 the judiciary hit rock bottom and redefined marriage, the building block of civilization. If nothing is done to fundamentally reform the entire judiciary, the courts, within the next few years, will fully codify transgenderism and every other form of de-civilization into the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. This will force all states, government employers and even private citizens to accommodate all sorts of disruptive behavior – all under the guise of furthering civil rights.
In addition to illegally overturning basic election integrity laws in Kansas, Wisconsin and North Carolina last week, there was another important case in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that is worth mentioning. On Thursday, Judge Ilana Rovner, a GOP appointee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, bemoaned the lack of a Supreme Court ruling fully codifying transgenderism into all aspects of anti-discrimination laws. Although she ultimately exercised self-control and stopped short of siding with the plaintiff who was alleging discrimination on account of her “transgender lifestyle,” nonetheless, Judge Rovner wrote a 40-page sexual identity polemic winking and nodding at the legal profession to go ahead and complete this final social transformation. Noting that “the writing was on the wall,” she used the old tactic of building upon existing insane case law bastardizing the intent of the Civil Rights Act and asserted that it is now incongruent not to take that law to the next frontier. This is the very culture of the legal profession’s one-directional ratchet away from sound constitutional and statutory jurisprudence I warn about in chapter 1 of Stolen Sovereignty.
Here is Rovner’s punchline:
Perhaps the writing is on the wall. It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry. The agency tasked with enforcing Title VII does not condone it, (see Baldwin, 2015 WL 4397641 at **5,10); many of the federal courts to consider the matter have stated that they do not condone it and this court undoubtedly does not condone it (see Ulane, 742 F.2d at 1084). But writing on the wall is not enough. Until the writing comes in the form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we must adhere to the writing of our prior precedent, and therefore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. [some legal citations omitted]
First, it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court is not on an equal playing field to Congress in defining Title VII, which was enacted in the ‘60s to stop the existing discrimination in the workforce against African Americans. The Supreme Court has no power to absurdly rule that Congress designed civil rights for transgenderism and somehow apply it retroactively to the 1960s. Yet, evidently even a GOP judge believes such a court-made power exists. Taken together with the Fourth Circuit already codifying transgenderism into Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, now mandating that members of the opposite sex be allowed in school bathrooms, this is gay marriage legal hocus pocus all over again. The lower courts are goading Justice Anthony Kennedy into taking the plunge into the abyss of judicial Gomorrah. There is no doubt as to how he would rule if and when these cases reach the eminent tribunal.
This is why we will never fix the courts conventionally simply by trying to appoint better judges. Sure, there are some better tactics we can employ relative to past GOP presidents in ensuring more Republican appointees share our view of the Constitution, but fundamentally the entire legal system is broken. Moreover, it would take years to even turn the tide of the circuits, and by then, all of this will be codified into the Constitution. We are now at the point when an individual can engage in any sort of behavior and assert civil rights based on an immutable identity. We are coming close to a time when a person can come into work fully nude or assert they are a trans-human and hide behind civil rights or the 14th Amendment. Justice Kennedy already wrote in Obergefell that a person has “the right to define and express their identity” as it relates to securing state benefits. There is no floor to this insanity if we don’t put a stop to it soon.
The courts have declared war on our society, representative democracy and our Constitution. It’s time to respond in kind and strip them down to their original job of interpreting the laws, not remaking the laws, the Constitution and the most immutable laws of nature and Nature’s God.
Want to keep up with what’s going on in Washington without the liberal media slant, establishment spin, and politician-ese?
Sign up to get CRTV’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every evening! It’s free!
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.