Earlier this week, conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh said that the Supreme Court’s pro-LGBT decision on sex discrimination in employment settings “may be the biggest sellout of conservatism by conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court.”
On his nationally syndicated radio program, Limbaugh said, “The Supreme Court yesterday, there were four decisions. And I have to tell you, the conservative intelligentsia is beside itself. The people who have supported The Federalist Society and who supported Kavanaugh, who supported Gorsuch, they’re beside themselves.”
Rush Limbaugh calls Supreme Court's LGBTQ decision 'biggest sellout of conservatism by conservative justices' in historyhttps://t.co/J6VhRZeZM0
— Kathleen (@ktyscarlet) June 17, 2020
“What happened yesterday at the Supreme Court may be the biggest sellout of conservatism by conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court on four different issues,” Limbaugh declared. Rush then broke down the issues: “One of them was taking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and throwing LGBTQ into it. Doing that is what is called textualism. It’s a legal term. And let me see if I can explain it.”
“The Civil Rights Act 1964 is passed, and to understand what was intended by the act, you go back to 1964, ’65, and you ask yourself, ‘What was sex in 1964, ’65?'” Rush queried. “Was it simply an act between a man and a woman? Was there gay sex involved?”
Limbaugh: Supreme Court justices "sellout" in recent LGBT decisionhttps://t.co/9l1p74NM6x
— Disrn (@DisrnNews) June 17, 2020
“But one thing that everybody agrees on, in fact, in 1964, ’65, the people that wrote the Civil Rights Act had no intention of including transgenders in it because there weren’t any that anybody knew,” Limbaugh said. “And yet justices on the United States Supreme Court decided to include LGBTQ people.”
“So now they can’t be fired, they can’t be— it’s gonna be a mess,” he said. “It’s an absolute mess. And textualism is the legal theory that allows a sitting judge to go ahead and throw something from 2020 into 1965 legislation, even though there is no way the legislation in ’65, the Civil Rights Act, could have possibly included LGBTQ transgenders and all that.”
“It was not an issue, it was not at the forefront, nobody talked about it,” he continued. “It wasn’t a big deal.”
— kimfiredup (@kimjirak1) June 16, 2020
Limbaugh then expounded on the Constitution and original intent. “So you throw it in under the evolving, living Constitution,” Rush said. “Well, that isn’t how conservatives look at the Constitution. The original intent, if you go back and find original intent, then that’s all you’re supposed to do.”
“So my point here, everybody on the right— I’m gonna share with you some excerpts today from a column by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review who just nails this and is beside himself with what happened,” Limbaugh continued. “And, by the way, he’s right.”
“A Supreme Court decision yesterday upheld sanctuary cities, thanks to conservative votes, upheld the right of cities to be sanctuary and to freeze ICE investigators out of trying to track down illegal immigrants,” he said. “The liberals did not need to dominate the court for this. They had Gorsuch,” Limbaugh finished.
This piece originally appeared in ThePoliticalInsider.com and is used by permission.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.