By: Autumn

His supreme court justice is another example. He’s a judicial Libertarian, and supports intended original meaning interpretations of law and constitutional amendments. This stems from a judicial precedent from the 80s in Chevron vs. Iforgetthename which allowed government officials to interpret vague laws as they understood them instead of within the “original intent” of the law that was passed.

One way this can roll back Obama’s use of Title IX to encompass LGBT people under groups protected by anti-sex based discrimination. Under original interpretation he would rule that unconstitutional. He also thinks things like civil rights law shouldn’t apply to businesses that aren’t directly involved with the government.

This means he’ll likely be anti-ENDA once one passes, and until it does any attempts to provide ENDA like coverage to us he will try to strike down as unconstitutional.

He’s about 50 years old and will be on the court for 20-30 years. It’s nuts.