Judges

I was reading an article about Trump’s nominee and she said…

“A judge must apply the law as written,” Barrett said. “Judges are not policy makers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

Which is true of all judges but the problem is what color are the judge’s lens.

Take the word “sex.” As in Title VII “No person in the United States shall, based on sex…”

Conservatives see it as narrowly defined as what is between your legs at birth. While liberals see it as a boarder definition of sex to mean the state of being male or female.

Law can be interpreted many ways, it all depends upon the lens that you look through.

In 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins landmark ruling that “sex” also covered sexual stereotyping and in the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia...

“The answer is clear,” the court’s opinion, written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, said. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Five of the justices in the Bostock case saw the word “sex” to be the expansive definition while four of the justices saw it through a narrow lens. So when judge Barrett said “A judge must apply the law as written” words have many meanings it which particular meaning that you want to pick and judge Barrett has blinders on her lens.