NOT JUST WHAT THEY
SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT MADE
IT ILLEGAL TO FIRE SOMEONE FOR
BEING GAY OR TRANSGENDER.
THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN BY
TRUMP-APPOINTED JUSTICE NEIL
GORSUCH.
THE MAJORITY FOUND THAT TITLE 7
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION
ON THE BASIS OF SEX ALSO APPLYIE
TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND
TRANSGENDER STATUS.
THE JUDGE WROTE, AN EMPLOYER WHO
FIRES AN INDIVIDUAL FOR BEING
HOMO SEXUAL OR TRANSGENDER FIRES
THAT PERSON FOR TRAITS OR
ACTIONS IT WOULD NOT HAVE
QUESTIONED IN MEMBERS OF A
DIFFERENT SEX.
SEX PLAYS AN UNNECESSARY AND DISTINGUISHABLE ROLE IN THAT
DISTINGUISHABLE ROLE IN THAT
DECISION, EXACTLY WHAT TITLE 7
FORBIDS.
THE JUDGES THAT DECENTED SAID NO
ONE IN 1964 WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
THAT DISCRIMINATION ON SEX WOULD
BE ON GENDER IDENTITY.
JOINING US NOW PRESIDENT OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN ALFONSO
DAVID AND PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER
JEFFREY ROSEN.
GOOD MORNING, IT’S GREAT TO HAVE
YOU BOTH WITH US.
ALFONSO LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU.
THEY’RE CALLING THIS A LANDMARK
DECISION, IT IS, A LONG-TIME
COMING SINCE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU, TO
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AND WHAT
DOES IT MEAN TO AMERICA?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, WILLIE.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
YESTERDAY STOOD ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.
SIDE OF HISTORY.
WHEN IT DECLARED A --
>> ALL RIGHT.
MIKA, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE’VE LOST
AN
ALFONSO’S AUDIO HERE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
WE CAN TRY AND ADJUST THAT.
THESE ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE TOUGH.
THERE WERE OTHER SURPRISES FROM
THE COURT.
TEN APPEALS THAT LOOKED TO
BROADEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO INCLUDE OWNING A
SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE AND CARRYING
A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC WERE DENIED
ARGUMENT.
ONE WAS A CHALLENGE TO A NEW
JERSEY LAW THAT REQUIRES A
PERSON TO SHOW A JUSTIFIABLE
NEED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A GUN
PERMIT.
IN THEIR DECENT, JUSTICE
CLARENCE THOMAS AND BRETT
KAVANAUGH CALLED THE STANDARD A,
QUOTE, ONEROUS BURDEN ON A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
BUT KAVANAUGH, ALONG WITH TRUMP
APPOINTEE, KNEEL GORSUCHNEIL GOR
WITH THE MAJORITY IN DENYING THE
APPEAL OF A CALIFORNIA SANCTUARY
LAW.
THE COURT CHOSE NOT TO INTERVENE
IN CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT’S
REFUSAL TO ASSIST FEDERAL AGENTS
IN TAKING CUSTODY OF IMMIGRANTS
AS THEY ARE RELEASED FROM JAIL.
THE COURT ALSO DECIDED NOT TO
HEAR CASES PERTAINING TO THE
COURT CREATED DOCTRINE OF
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, WHICH
PROTECTS POLICE OFFICERS FROM
LAWSUITS FOR THEIR ONDUTY
ACTIONS.
>>> JEFFREY ROSEN IT IS HARD
SOMETIMES FOR LAYMEN AND WOMEN
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPREME
COURT, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, PEOPLE
SAYING, I WASN’T SURPRISED BY
JUSTICE GORSUCH’S DECISIONS, HE
LIKES GAY PEOPLE.
THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
HE’S -- HE LOOKED AT THE TEXT,
HE INTERPRETED IT BASED ON A
LIFETIME OF JUDICIAL REASONING.
IT’S THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER
SIDE, WHERE, FOR INSTANCE,
PEOPLE THAT WANT EXPANSIVE GUN
RIGHTS DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THE
SUPREME COURT IS VERY
CONSERVATIVE WITH A SMALL C WHEN
IT COMES TO BEING DEFERENTIAL TO
STATES DINING ROOMETERMINING HOW
GOING TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS,
BE IT A BAN IN CONNECTICUT OR IN
NEW JERSEY.
SORT THROUGH WHAT YOU SAW
YESTERDAY AND HOW, WHEN IT CAME
TO THE -- THE CULTURE WARS,
WHETHER IT’S GAYS, GUNS,
SANCTUARY CITIES.
THAT THIS PROVED IT WAS NOT
CONSERVATIVE WITH A BIG C BUT
PRETTY CONSERVATIVE WITH A SMALL
C.
>> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND IT’S SO IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUSTICES ARE
DECIDING THESE CASES IN TERMS OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
METHODOLOGY, NOT THEIR PARTISAN
POLITICS.
THAT’S WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH’S
DECISION WAS SO INSPIRING.
IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF PRINCIPLED
TEXTUALISM HE SAID, CHANNELLING
JUSTICE SCALIA, WE LOOK AT THE
ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF THE
LAW AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT
WAS PASSED.
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE PEOPLE
WHO PASSED IT IN 1964 DIDN’T
EXPECT IT TO APPLY TO GAY AND
LESBIAN PEOPLE, WE’RE BOUND TO
FOLLOW THE TEXT REGARDLESS WHERE
IT LEADS.
AND THE DECENTERS SAID IT’S UP
TO CONGRESS TO MAKE THE CHANGES,
NOT THE COURT.
SO THERE WAS A BAIT WITHIN THE
CONSERVATIVE CLOCK ABOUT HOW TO
INTERPRET TEXT.
AND IT WASN’T ABOUT WHETHER YOU
LIKE GAY PEOPLE OR DON’T LIKE
GAY PEOPLE AND JUSTICE GORSUCH
SAID SOMETIMES THERE’S AN
ELEPHANT HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
AND THIS IS A MOMENTOUS CHANGE
AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE IT.
SAME THING FOR THE GUNS OR THE
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DECISION.
THERE IT WAS JUSTICE CLARENCE
THOMAS WHO WROTE A DECENT SAYING
I THINK QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW THAT
CREATED PROTECTIONS FOR POLICE
OFFICERS AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD
ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
HE DOESN’T WANT TO DO THAT AS A
POLICY MANNER, BUT THE LAW
COMMANDED IT.
IT WAS A HISTORIC DAY YESTERDAY
WE SAW IN ALL OF THESE CASES
JUSTICES REACHING CONCLUSIONS
THAT MAY HAVE CLASHED WITH THEIR
POLITICAL PREFERENCES AND IT
PROVIDES INSPIRATION FOR
AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY
ON ALL SIDES OF THE AISLE WHO
ARE HUNGRY FOR A VISION OF
NON-PARTISAN REASON CHANNELLED
BY OUR GOVERNMENT NOT LED BY
PASSION.
YESTERDAY INSPIRING 6-3 DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE A
VISION OF A COURT LED BY REASON
RATHER THAN PASSION.
>> AND YOU’RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
CLARENCE THOMAS DID THAT COMING
FROM THE RIGHT ON QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS,
SAYING, WAIT A SECOND, HOLD ON,
NO.
THIS IS NOT -- QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY DOES NOT MEAN THIS.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS MORE
CLOSELY.
YOU’RE RIGHT, SAME THING WITH
NEIL GORSUCH.
EVERYBODY CAN CALL THEMSELVES
TEXTUALIST WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE
WORD SEX, IN DECIDING WHETHER
SEX HAD TO DO WITH GENDER OR
WITH SOMETHING MORE.
JEFFREY IF WE CAN JUST -- I WANT
TO GIVE ONE OF MY FAVORITE
EXAMPLES OF A COURT DOING THIS.
AND HAVE YOU TALK ABOUT IT
EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T READ
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
I REMEMBER BACK -- I REMEMBER
EVERYBODY BEING SHOCKED WHEN
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MADE THE
DECISION HE MADE ON OBAMACARE.
AT FIRST I WAS STUNNED AND THEN
I READ THE DECISION, I LAUGHED
AND SAID THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE DECISIONS I’VE EVER
SEEN.
AND IT IS IN LINE WITH JOHN
ROBERTS’ JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY.
HE BASICALLY SAID IT, DON’T ASK
ME TO DO FROM THE COURT, FROM
THE BENCH, WHAT YOU CAN DO IN
THE VOTING BOOTH NEXT YEAR.
YOU DON’T LIKE OBAMACARE, FINE.
GO VOTE.
THAT’S YOUR JOB.
I’M NOT GOING TO LEGISLATE FROM
THE BENCH.
I THOUGHT IT WAS BRILLIANT.
IF I’M TRYING TO EXPLAIN
ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY, EVEN IF THE OUTCOME
WAS NOT THE OUTCOME, I WOULD DO
THAT.
I ALSO REMEMBER TALKING TO JEB
BUSH WHEN JEB WAS GOVERNOR OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, JEB VERY
PRO-LIFE.
I SAID, I KNOW A GUY WHO WOULD
LOVE TO TALK TO YOU, HE’S
INTERESTED IN BEING ON THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
HE SAID BB IS HE A CONSERVATIVE?
YES, HE’S A CONSERVATIVE.
NO, IS HE CONSERVATIVE?
I SAID WHAB DO YOU MEAN?
IF HE’S PRO-LIFE, IS HE GOING TO
FOLLOW THE LAW OR THE PRO-LIFE
BELIEVES?
I SAID, HE’LL FOLLOW THE LAW.
OKAY, I’LL TALK TO HIM.
THAT’S WHAT BEING A JUDICIAL
CONSERVATIVE IS, NOT LEGISLATING
FROM THE BENCH.
FOLLOWING THE LAW.
>> THAT IS SO TRUE.
IT’S A CENTRAL POINT AND IT’S
RIGHT ABOUT JEB BUSH.
YOU KNOW, JEB BUSH WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL
CONSTITUTION CENTER, HE WAS
SUCCEEDED BY VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN AND OUR CURRENT CHAIR IS
NEIL GORSUCH, WE HAVE LIBERALS
AND CONSERVATIVES.
ALL OF THEM BELIEVE WHAT YOU
SAID, IT’S THE JOB OF JUDGES TO
FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF
WHERE IT LEADS.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT JOHN ROBERTS
WAS DOING.
HE SAID, WE HAVE TO DEFER TO
CONGRESS AS JUDGES AND IF
CONGRESS WANTS TO CHANGE THE
LAW, THEY CAN.
IF THERE’S SOME PLAUSIBLE HOLD
FOR OBAMACARE, I’M GOING TO TAKE
IT.
THAT’S WHAT NEIL GORSUCH SAID
TOO, IT’S NOT UP FOR US TO
DISLIKE THIS RESULT BECAUSE
CONGRESS DIDN’T ANTICIPATE IT.
THESE ARE THE WORDS THEY CHOSE
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT WHERE THEY
LEAD.
THERE’S A LOT OF CYNICISM ABOUT
COURTS IN THE COUNTRY BUT WHAT
WE’RE SEEING HERE IS JUDGES
DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE
SUPPOSED TO DO.
FOLLOWING THE LAW WHERE IT LEADS
LEIGHING IT UP TO THE POLITICAL
BRANCHS TO MAKE IMPORTANT
POLITICAL DECISIONS.
AND IT’S A RAY OF HOPE THAT IN
THE PARTISANSHIP WE’RE SEEING
CITIZENS CAN LOOK TO THE COURTS
AS AN IDEAL OF NONPARTISAN
ADJUDICATION WHERE JUDGES
SEPARATE THEIR POLITICAL SENSES.
>> WE HAVE RECONNECTED WITH
ALFONSO.
OUR APOLOGIES ABOUT THE
DISCONNECT THERE BUT I WANT YOU
TO CONTINUE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
EARLIER.
MOST PEOPLE THIS OPENED EYES,
THEY SAID YOU CAN STILL BE FIRED
FOR BEING GAY AND TRANSGENDER?
AND THE ANSWER WAS YES.
HOW MONUMENTAL A DECISION IS
THIS?
>> THANK YOU, WILLIE.
THIS IS A LANDMARK DECISION FOR
LGBTQ PEOPLE.
IN 29 STATES IN THIS COUNTRY
THEY HAD NO STATE LAW
PROTECTIONS.
SO THIS DECISION IS A HUGE, HUGE
DECISION FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO
WERE WORRIED IF COMING OUT AT
WORK, WORRIED ABOUT TALKING
ABOUT THEIR PARTNERS OR SPOUSES
AT WORK, WORRIED ABOUT BEING
THEMSELVES.
AND WE ARE PROUD OF THIS
DECISION, AS JEFFREY SAID, THE
MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES HONORED
THE RULE OF LAW AND DECADES OF
LEGAL PRECEDENT TO AFFIRM THAT
LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED FROM
DISCRIMINATION UNDER FEDERAL
LAW.
WORK IS SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN
OUR LIVES IT ALLOWS US TO
PROVIDE FOR OUR FAMILIES, TO
PROVIDE FOR OURSELVES.
AND WORK IS ALSO PART OF OUR
IDENTITIES.
IT’S KEY TO HOW WE AND THE WORLD
AND SOCIETY SEES OURSELVES.
SO THIS IS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL
DECISION FOR US.
AND WE ARE REALLY, REALLY HAPPY
WITH THE COURT’S RULING.
IT IS NOT THE END OF THE ROAD
FOR US.
THIS RULING IS NOT THE END OF
LGBTQ, THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY.
WE STILL HAVE TO PASS THE
EQUALITY ACT WHICH IS CURRENTLY
STILL STALLED IN THE SENATE.
WE STILL HAVE TO ELECT A
PRESIDENT WHO IS PRO EQUALITY.
ELECT CONGRESS, A SENATE THAT IS
PROEQUALITY SO THEY CAN PASS THE
EQUALITY ACT.
MANY PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THIS, BUT
THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT
PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ IN PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS, IN CREDIT, IN
EDUCATION.
THAT’S WHAT THE EQUALITY ACT
WOULD DO.
IF I WALKED INTO A GAP
DEPARTMENT STORE OR KNEENEIMAN
MARCUS
MARCUS, THERE’S NO LAUD THAT
WOULD PROTECT ME BECAUSE I’M
LGBTQ.
THE EQUALITY ACT WOULD CHANGE
THAT.
IF WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO WAS
PRO EQUALITY THAT PRESIDENT
WOULD SIGN IT INTO LAW.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO
DO BUT YES, THIS IS A LANDMARK
DECISION FROM YESTERDAY.
>> IN THEIR DECENT YESTERDAY
JUSTICES ALITO AND THOMAS SAID,
THIS IS LEGISLATING FROM THE
BENCH.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GREY AND
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE PASS A LAW TO
DO THAT, THAT’S NOT OUR JOB TO
DO SO.
WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
AS YOU POINTED OUT YOU’VE BEEN
TRYING TO DO THAT IN 29 STATES
WITHOUT MUCH LUCK?
>> I THINK THAT’S A CON VIE YENT
ARGUMENT FOR DECENT.
WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE
MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF CASE LAW THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON
THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON
IN SUPPORTING -- THAT RELY ON
TITLE -- TO LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>> WE GOT SOME OF THAT.
PRESIDENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS