Limbaugh: SCOTUS ruling on LGBT rights may be ‘biggest sellout of conservatism’

This week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that protections contained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply to individuals who are part of the LGBTQ community, with Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch authoring the majority opinion. But not everyone is pleased with the news.

Reacting to the decision on Tuesday, veteran conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said that it may represent “the biggest sellout of conservatism by conservative justices,” Breitbart reported.

Limbaugh laments ruling

“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, according to Breitbart.

“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 going to be a mess,” he continued. “It’s an absolute mess.”

The broadcast legend wasn’t the only one to take issue with the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissent in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a dissenting opinion of his own.

What’s more, since the decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County was announced, many conservative commentators have expressed alarm that the conservative majority that now sits on the court did not hold, paying particular attention to the fact that Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with his colleagues to the left and speculating what that might mean for future cases of national importance.

An alarming trend?

On Tuesday, Limbaugh added his voice to concerns that the court, despite its outward appearance of having a conservative tilt, appears to be ruling in increasingly unexpected ways. As evidence, the host made reference to another disappointing decision just handed down by the panel.

“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,” Limbaugh complained, referencing the court’s decision on Monday not to hear a challenge from the Trump administration to California’s sanctuary policy.

“When officers are unable to arrest aliens – often criminal aliens – who are in removal proceedings or have been ordered removed from the United States, those aliens instead return to the community, where criminal aliens are disproportionately likely to commit crimes,” USA Today quoted U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco as arguing on behalf of the administration.

“That result undermines public safety, immigration enforcement, and the rule of law,” Francisco went on to insist.

However, the paper also quoted a lawyer representing the state of California, who said, “Undue entanglement with immigration enforcement can deter victims and witnesses from reporting state crimes and divert limited resources from other activities that the legislature has determined will better protect local public safety.”

In the announcement denying writ of certiorari, it was noted that reliable conservatives Justice Thomas and Justice Alito both believed the Supreme Court should indeed take up the case. As Limbaugh astutely — and perhaps ominously — observed, “the liberals did not need to dominate the court for this [outcome]. They had Gorsuch.”

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook