Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion protecting LGBTQ rights in the workplace, and the head of a right-wing group that fought to have him appointed is very very angry.
The head of a far right wing activist group is furious conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote Monday’s majority Supreme Court opinion that finds discriminating against LGBTQ workers is illegal.
Judicial Crisis Network, a “powerful dark money group pushing [the] court to right,” ran a $10 million campaign in 2017 to force Gorsuch onto the bench. He is President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee. The group also spent $1 million to block President Barack Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the bench.
In a series of tweets, Carrie Severino blasted Justice Gorsuch and the five others who sided with his opinion. She even claims they are merely trying to appeal to college students by finding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination.
Gorsuch, a textualist who replaced Justice Antonin Scalia on the bench, decided that as written, the actual words of the Civil Rights Act make clear that discriminating on the basis of sex is illegal.
Severino, who also happens to be married to Roger Severino, a far right wing religious activist who heads the Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights under Trump, is furious.
Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards.
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 15, 2020
This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system. (1/x)
Have no doubts about what happened today: This was the hijacking of textualism.
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 15, 2020
You can't redefine the meaning of words themselves and still be doing textualism. This is an ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy. (end)
President Trump and his administration oppose rights for LGBTQ workers and actively lobbied to have the Court rule discrimination is legal.
On social media many – including some conservatives – are mocking her.
Dang, too bad the justice you guys bought isn't a far-right extremist 100% of the time. https://t.co/WVHS2K6UNe
— Alex Kotch (@alexkotch) June 15, 2020
The reason why conservative dark money groups like JCN spend millions of dollars on judicial nominations ($10 million+ for Gorsuch alone!) is because they want to guarantee conservative legal outcomes. It didn't work today, and they're pissed. https://t.co/Na3MiKClkK
— Meagan Hatcher-Mays (@importantmeagan) June 15, 2020
Yes, a man with a lifetime appointment and guaranteed salary of more than $250,000/year even after he retires felt the need to cater to college campuses and editorial boards. This makes complete and total sense.
— Dan. B (@forensics409) June 15, 2020
Cry me a river pic.twitter.com/zxfU4vcMFu
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) June 15, 2020
INCONVENIENT FACT: Justice Scalia was one of the most "activist" judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court.
— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) June 15, 2020
In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia wrote the majority opinion that overturned 200 years of 2nd Amendment law just because it suited his right-wing, pro-NRA views. https://t.co/BYWVVit1yh
Looks like using "textualism" as a cover for bigotry didn't work this time. Sad for you.
— Scott Tobias (@scott_tobias) June 15, 2020
"Textualism" is just an excuse to discriminate against people they hate. https://t.co/93BRWm8047
— Marc Love (@marcslove) June 15, 2020
Thoughts and prayers for the right-wing activists who thought they had installed only fellow bigots onto the bench. https://t.co/C1d4PIFL6B
— Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) June 15, 2020
Carrie Severino, right wing judicial activist and spouse of HHS OCR director who last week issued a discriminatory HHS rule that was invalidated by today's SCOTUS decision, is upset about Gorsuch's textualist argument https://t.co/aEUU9YDDKQ
— Tim Fitzsimons (@tfitzsimons) June 15, 2020
bigots like carrie invent sophisticated and academic excuses to rationalize their bigotry. the same people saying this justified dred scott v. sandford. and those same people justified plessy v. ferguson.
— brent (@brent858) June 15, 2020
bigots always find a way to frame their intolerance as intellectualism. https://t.co/A6TbSvpFmb
Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Photo via NCRM
