Republican commentator Tomi Lahren called out conservatives this week for the opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch sided with liberal justices in the ruling. Lahren does not think it’s right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But the ruling in Bostock v Clay County is not whether or not those should be protected classes; it’s whether conservatives support judicial activism or not.
In the “Tomi Lahren Final Thoughts” program on Fox Nation, Lahren said she supports the ruling, because she supports the issue. Is that conservative?
Multiple food products will be disappearing from the shelves, having fallen victim to racial wokeness. Say goodbye to Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. Plus, a college football coach bows down to the leftwing racial mob.
Check out today’s show for all the details.
Please add your comments below and also please add them to the comments on the YouTube video.
Subscribe to the YouTube channel
I think that ring Tomi Lahren had in her nose, affected her brain cells!!! Hey Tomi, is it ok for men who have turned themselves into “women”, to run on the women’s track team, so the real “women” lose scholarships and can never finish first again??????????????
I never knew who she was till now.. From listening to half an hr of her talking, she certainly seems like she MAY have been conservative.. AT ONE POINT In history. BUT certainly isn’t one anymore.
It’s getting easier and easier to detect all the people who need to go. People we once considered conservative (Romney) are exposed as RINOs.
MANY we’ve known, need to go, for a while now. BUT THere’s not been any REAL Conservative opposition to replace them with…
It would sure be nice if some people could get it through their heads why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the judiciary to the job of the legislation, rather than use it as an end-run around the process to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.
It is literally an impossibility that a limited number of minds could foresee, let alone know, all the possiblly different ways it will impact all the people.
While there is a good argument to be made for not discriminating against others simply because of their age, race, religion or sex, there is an even better one to be made against thinking you can know who is who to be discriminated against when the person is the sole arbiter over who they think they are.
It actually serves to weaken the reason for discrimination laws because to be able to discriminate you have to
clearly know what you are deciding between.
A legislative body where this was open to public comment would have revealed this shortcoming of trying to protect people from discrimination when only they know who they are and would have never been legislated because it is impossible to fix it to words
The only way such stupidity could be imposed is if the court proclaimed an edict so as to undermine reason
PART 1 OF 2
PART 2 OF 2
It is exactly the same thing that was found in trying to ban so-called “assault weapons.”
It was impossible to define them so they were uniquely different from any other gun.
The whole thing about the existence of assault weapons was something uniquely found only in Democrats heads because it was not something that could be fixed in writing with a definition so everyone could know.
Same thing with sexual orientation and transgender
It creates ambiguities in the law and can be whatever they say it is, so no one but them can know so they can rule you by the very definition of ……..
TYRANNY
arbitrary and capricious rule
So now two judges thought to have a brain have just aided mindless liberals to make the very law itself irrelevant
Which allows them in the future to issue more fiats, dictates, and edicts until the people start shooting each other because they cannot settle their differences with words because words have lost their meaning
Great job, just rendered the entire court system good for nothing, which just happens to be the definition of the Hebrew word translated in the Bible as EVIL, good for nothing
I actually looked it up. ONLY ONE judge has ever been impeached for partisanship, AND HE STILL was found innocent in the Senate, so got left on the bench.. ONE in the entire history.
SO WHY HAVE the rules congress can impeach them for SHANKING UP, if they’re never gonna get USED?!
Article One, Section One of the Constitution (read it for yourself) clearly grants the authority to make law exclusively to the Congress.
Thus the Executive Branch is prohibited from issuing “executive orders” and “rules and regulations.” This is regardless of whether the proclamation fits my political agenda (or yours) or not.
Thus the Judicial Branch is prohibited from issuing “court orders” which alter the law or create new law. Again, this is regardless of whether I would otherwise love or hate the court order.
Congress and ONLY the Congress may make law. (Deal with it.)
Since the horde of bureaucrats have refused to stay within their constitutional limits, we must rescind and abolish ALL of the Federal Register, the library full of rules and regulations issued over these many years. Then lay-off (fire) each and every bureaucrat whose job it is to make &/or enforce rules and regulations setting them free to find useful, productive employment in the private sector (since there is nothing useful &/or productive done in the public sector that can’t be done better elsewhere).
Also, we must amend the Constitution to submit all federal judges to election by “We, the People” of the respective jurisdictions. The term of office should be six years and one-third to be elected each two years (just like we elect the US Senate). If you like your judge, re-elect. If you don’t like your judge, send in a replacement.
“Congress and ONLY the Congress may make law. (Deal with it.”
Words, what does “make” mean?
Every state in the union and the federal government have at a minimum three sets of laws
The one made (codified, written) by the legislature
The one how the president or a governor applied it, administered it
Then there is case law, how the court interpreted the meaning of the words the legislature wrote and the words of how the administration applied it
There is Uniform Commercial Code to standardize different states and the federal governments codes
Then there are organizations like the American Bar Association which picks and chooses between the various words in the codes as to where they think the emphasis of the written works should be
Then there are customs and traditions
But they all have one objective in common, to have the law known and understood
This decision of the court renders both of these an impossibility
It is the result of trying to make the law do the impossible and still be the law. It is the equivalent of saying 2 + 2 can be 5 if 4 wants to be 5. It is how loony tunes the Supreme Court has become
The Supreme Court Justices all attended Ivy League Liberal Universities ……..and is made-up of Liberals and Moderate Liberals …nothing more nothing less.
I don’t agree with the decision or the judges making laws from the court. These justices swore to uphold and protect our constitution and many times they do not do that! They are oath breakers, like so many who take the oath.
I am also sick and tired of certain people getting special rights. We all have God given rights and freedoms, which our constitution reflects. Our country would have a lot less problems if we would remember that and live our lives accordingly.
Hence why i say its time to BOOT THEM ALL. Restart it from ground frikken zero.
Cracker Jack Changes Name To More Politically Correct Caucasian Jack
June 17th, 2020
PLANO, TX—When ballparks finally open again, those standing for the traditional seventh-inning stretch will be singing some different lyrics to “Take Me Out to the Ballgame.”
After over 100 years of selling its caramel popcorn snack under the name Cracker Jack, Frito-Lay announced today that it would be rebranded as the less offensive “Caucasian Jack.”
“We are very sorry to all the crack—er, I mean, Caucasians we have hurt over the years,” said a spokesperson. “Cracker is an offensive stereotype, and we must make sure that all foods and snack products are culturally sensitive. Think about all the white people who have had to suffer in silence as tens of thousands of baseball fans sang out the hurtful lyrics ‘Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jacks.'”
“No more. The bigotry stops today.”
The move was applauded by hurt white people, though they are still criticizing Frito-Lay for how pale and pasty-white the Cracker Jack guy is on the logo.
Ba
Shesh, will the COWARDICE ever stop??
It’s high time another category of protected class was added to the growing list: those with unpopular political viewpoints. If we’re going to say “discrimination” is wrong, then viewpoint discrimination is wrong, too.
Two points, very simple, no rant, no lecture. One: There are boys and there are girls, any belief to the contrary is mental illness. You are born one of the two, it does not change no matter what you do. Two: I personally don’t give a damn if a Supreme Court judge is liberal or conservative, male or female, black or white, I just wish they would all read the Constitution. Apparently they have lost their copy, we really need to get them a new one. What matters more than anything, to everyone in the USA, is that we have Constitutional judges, to Hell with their bias, preferences, or even opinions, none matter. The Constitution has served us well, protected us, for over two hundred years, but of late it has been trampled on by the courts and elected officials. The Constitution is the law of the land, not a suggestion and was intended to protect us from exactly what is going on now! Read it!
Lahren needs to educate herself as to the meaning of ‘legislation from the bench’. Congress writes the laws young lady, not the supreme court.
Tell that to the judges who seem to have MADE laws out of nothing, via a # of their rulings..
Such as CHANGING the wording of the equality laws.. OR creating the RIGHT to abortion, which never existed..