The Supreme Court released two decisions today, one goodish and one horrific. , the goodish one, says that Title IX applies to biological females, so boys and men don’t get to be on girls’ and women’s sports teams at high schools and colleges. It’s only “goodish,” though, because it allows the execrable Bostock decision to stand, the one that forced gender dysphoria into every workplace in America.
Read more President vs. the Supreme Court
The horrific decision is , which says that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship. This not only runs counter to Congress’s manifestly stated intentions when it ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868, but it also puts the law in the hands of the lawbreakers. People who enter our country illegally or for the sole purpose of dropping a baby (giving nations such as China votes in American elections in 18 years) now control who is an American.
In West Virginia v. Jackson, a 9-0 opinion, the Court examined whether West Virginia’s and Ohio’s laws prohibiting males from participating in female-only school sports teams violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh’s decisions started from the scientific reality that males and females have different physical abilities, with men being bigger, stronger, and faster.
However, Kavanaugh explains that men have been invading women’s sports by claiming that they are women. The plaintiffs are males who took testosterone-blocking hormones. The question is whether, by claiming to be women and decreasing their testosterone, these males qualify as girls or women under Title IX and 14th Amendment principles.
Title IX was enacted to ensure that colleges didn’t send all their resources to men’s concerns. Eventually, the Javitz amendment focused on sports. Because (a) men are more likely to want to participate in sports and (b) fans prefer watching men’s sports, schools were focusing on men, not women. The legislative purpose was to ensure that girls and women didn’t get economically sidelined.
The focus was on “sex”—not the act, but the genetic identity—so that schools were allowed to have separate teams in the same sport for each “sex.” And the reason for this was that biological difference, which the Court affirmed. The Court also said (not quite so bluntly) that it sucks for the plaintiff that he rendered himself unfit to compete on male teams, but life isn’t fair and the law is what it is.
The plaintiff also sought protection from the misbegotten Bostock decision. However, the Court, both in the main opinion and Gorsuch’s concurrence, while rejecting the Bostock argument, used sophistry to leave that opinion standing. The Court says employment and sex are different, especially because Title IX explicitly divides sports by sex. Gorsuch babbles on how it’s discriminatory against sex generally to prevent employers from firing people mentally ill with gender dysphoria. So, our workplaces must still accommodate trans madness.
As for Equal Protection, applying the strict scrutiny standard that the Court developed for such analyses, the Court said that states have a strong interest in protecting girls from boys’ greater physical prowess. The Court dismissed the claim that some males, especially because of chemicals, are weak; generally, males are not, and that’s sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny.
Read more Justice Amy Coney Barrett says there is no time limit for ballot counting
And of course, the plaintiffs claimed outright discrimination against so-called transgender people. However, transgenderism is not a protected class. (Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, makes it clear that no mental illness is a protected class, as well as pointing out the reality that no matter how a boy “identifies,” he’s still a boy.)
I couldn’t force myself to read Sotomayor’s concurrence and dissent. It was enough that she started by making the case that one of the plaintiffs is just a perfectly ordinary, all-American girl with a penis.
And then there’s Trump v. Barbara, which Roberts wrote, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.
The opinion grounds itself in British common law and American precedent to claim that opposing birthright citizenship is ahistorical and racist. However, if you look at the history of the 14th Amendment, it’s patently clear that it was not intended to allow every child born on American soil to gain citizenship.
Instead, its sole purpose was to grant citizenship to people brought to America against their will and then wrongly enslaved for generations. The Congress of 1868 would recoil at the thought that the Amendment had turned into carte blanche for every illegal alien and Chinese (or Iranian or Russian) national to drop a baby on American soil, creating an anchor and a future anti-American voter.
Today’s decisions affirm that there are only two actual justices on the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson are moronic leftist political hacks, while Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts are cowards who blow with the political winds, occasionally getting it right, but lacking the principles that will always lead them down a true, constitutional path.
Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices are living embodiments of America’s decline. They may wrap themselves in precedent but, as the old saying goes, the law is what the judge had for breakfast,” and these seven dine on bowls filled with either “the breakfast of communists” or “the breakfast of cowards.”
Read more 250 years ago, and 200 years ago
Image by Matt Popovitch.