The other judges and their left-wing colleagues complain about the language because 1) it draws attention to their feckless stupidity; and 2) it is accurate.
In a sane world the Korean spa case would be decided on the issue of property rights. They own the spa and so can decide who get to be members. This is another example of the fact that without property rights there are no rights. The basic premise of the courts seems to be the communistic idea that we can have personal property but not private property.
Perhaps, but that's not the "sane" grounds on which Pacific Legal (representing the plaintiff, Olympus Spa) sued the State/WSHRC. They sued on First Amendment's free exercise, speech, and association grounds (which I am tempted to second guess). Strangely, it doesn't seem like 1A even factored into the Majority's (or Minority's) decisions/opinions along the way.
Digging into this case is an all-day (or more) excursion. Even just digging into Judge VanDyke's dissent is an arguably-bewildering project. I spent too much time on it, went down far-flung rabbit holes, and ultimately abandoned the odyssey, unimpressed and/or exasperated with ALL involved (except maybe the plaintiff/victim and its female customers).
That said, your "The basic premise of the courts seems to be the communistic idea that we can have personal property but not private property" offers much food for thought, Mr. Ralston (and it reminds me of the mythical "free market"). However, it appears that there are no "basic" any-things when it comes to our "justice" system. The Olympus Spa case is Rube Goldberg-ian farce (that exposes the naked absurdity of law in the USA). I'm extra offended that "conservative" judges find themselves arguing *for* "protected classes" (this untouchable extra-/un-Constitutional invention of the 1960s is a trap and a foundational reason why we are in our mess). Special protection in the name of "equal" is newfangled equality (inequality) in late-model civil society.
We have gone from "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" to treating words as more powerful than actions. People who ruin a man's career for a comment on a co-workers appearance later claim that attacking Federal law enforcement agents is protected free "speech". Apparently making people feel badly is not allowed, but making them bleed is. Describing a swinging dick is bad, forcing one on a young girl is good.
Communists will brook no opposition to their propaganda.
One small quibble(one giant quibble for Mankind): you wrote, "...transgender women, in other words, self-identifying"women" with penises." I would suggest instead "...in other word, men."
Can we instead of referring to Swallow-well, go with the most telling label: Fang Fang's 'Honey Trap'. Newsom is a disaster, but, a useful idiot being the target of Chicom sexpionage is disgraceful. How could even Democrats vote for such a seditious reprobate.
As a biological entity formerly known as a "Woman"; an adult human female who has undergone puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, child birth and menopause, I have always objected STRONGLY to transgenderism as anything but a psychological disorder. There is simply no way for a person who hasn't experienced ANY of those things to know what it 'feels like' to be a woman. But to be psychologically disturbed is not a moral failing.
HOWEVER, for any institution, be it the courts, the schools or society at large, to insist with the force of law that the rest of us participate in the insanity (inability to discern reality from fantasy) of the very few, is evil in the extreme.
Orwell only imagined the state forcing us to believe that 2+2=5. To believe that men are women is several orders of magnitude more authoritarian. If the state can make us believe that, it can make us do anything.
Brilliantly stated, MLP. I WISH there were a way for all these trannies to be forced to have periods -- one a month for 40 years, give or take -- and for the silly women pretending to be men to have ACTUAL testicles so they could experience being kicked in them. AG
Dave Chappelle does a brilliant bit about being 12, on a crowded city bus with a backpack full of money, suddenly realizing what it might be like to possess a vagina.
Rape aside, if you've never worried about the wisdom of wearing white pants, you have no idea what it's like to be a woman.
I pity the people who hate themselves so much they actually try to become someone else but I DESPISE the evil weaklings who insist we must abandon reality and truth in service to a lie.
The whole National Firearms Act of 1934 is an unconstitutional abomination and should be repealed ASAP. The details the good judge elucidated are informative and correct, but should be irrelevant.
Judge Van Dyke is obviously brilliant and a real breath of fresh air in the modern judiciary. To start with he actually knows how guns work. The Washington state case is moronic. The allowing of men of any persuasion into a women's space is disgusting. Nothing but pure, unadulterated leftist bullshit ( I will call it exactly what it is) can justify the 9th Circuit's opinion. One can only hope that the case will be brought to the Supreme Court where, with the exception of the three dingbats, actual adults make the rulings.
On this case, it is POSSIBLE that one of the dingbats could actually remember what a woman "is" and vote correctly. But, usually they form a solid phalanx of Leftist idiocy to be counted on. They are an embarrassment to women everywhere. AG
The other judges and their left-wing colleagues complain about the language because 1) it draws attention to their feckless stupidity; and 2) it is accurate.
In a sane world the Korean spa case would be decided on the issue of property rights. They own the spa and so can decide who get to be members. This is another example of the fact that without property rights there are no rights. The basic premise of the courts seems to be the communistic idea that we can have personal property but not private property.
In a sane world the issue would never come up
Great point, well said.
Perhaps, but that's not the "sane" grounds on which Pacific Legal (representing the plaintiff, Olympus Spa) sued the State/WSHRC. They sued on First Amendment's free exercise, speech, and association grounds (which I am tempted to second guess). Strangely, it doesn't seem like 1A even factored into the Majority's (or Minority's) decisions/opinions along the way.
Digging into this case is an all-day (or more) excursion. Even just digging into Judge VanDyke's dissent is an arguably-bewildering project. I spent too much time on it, went down far-flung rabbit holes, and ultimately abandoned the odyssey, unimpressed and/or exasperated with ALL involved (except maybe the plaintiff/victim and its female customers).
That said, your "The basic premise of the courts seems to be the communistic idea that we can have personal property but not private property" offers much food for thought, Mr. Ralston (and it reminds me of the mythical "free market"). However, it appears that there are no "basic" any-things when it comes to our "justice" system. The Olympus Spa case is Rube Goldberg-ian farce (that exposes the naked absurdity of law in the USA). I'm extra offended that "conservative" judges find themselves arguing *for* "protected classes" (this untouchable extra-/un-Constitutional invention of the 1960s is a trap and a foundational reason why we are in our mess). Special protection in the name of "equal" is newfangled equality (inequality) in late-model civil society.
We have gone from "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" to treating words as more powerful than actions. People who ruin a man's career for a comment on a co-workers appearance later claim that attacking Federal law enforcement agents is protected free "speech". Apparently making people feel badly is not allowed, but making them bleed is. Describing a swinging dick is bad, forcing one on a young girl is good.
Communists will brook no opposition to their propaganda.
One small quibble(one giant quibble for Mankind): you wrote, "...transgender women, in other words, self-identifying"women" with penises." I would suggest instead "...in other word, men."
Can we instead of referring to Swallow-well, go with the most telling label: Fang Fang's 'Honey Trap'. Newsom is a disaster, but, a useful idiot being the target of Chicom sexpionage is disgraceful. How could even Democrats vote for such a seditious reprobate.
Given Democrats, how could they not vote for a lying treasonous thief?
"Make America Great Again" triggers these people. Of course they'll vote for a seditious reprobate!
As a biological entity formerly known as a "Woman"; an adult human female who has undergone puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, child birth and menopause, I have always objected STRONGLY to transgenderism as anything but a psychological disorder. There is simply no way for a person who hasn't experienced ANY of those things to know what it 'feels like' to be a woman. But to be psychologically disturbed is not a moral failing.
HOWEVER, for any institution, be it the courts, the schools or society at large, to insist with the force of law that the rest of us participate in the insanity (inability to discern reality from fantasy) of the very few, is evil in the extreme.
Orwell only imagined the state forcing us to believe that 2+2=5. To believe that men are women is several orders of magnitude more authoritarian. If the state can make us believe that, it can make us do anything.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Progressivism is a death cult.
Brilliantly stated, MLP. I WISH there were a way for all these trannies to be forced to have periods -- one a month for 40 years, give or take -- and for the silly women pretending to be men to have ACTUAL testicles so they could experience being kicked in them. AG
Dave Chappelle does a brilliant bit about being 12, on a crowded city bus with a backpack full of money, suddenly realizing what it might be like to possess a vagina.
Rape aside, if you've never worried about the wisdom of wearing white pants, you have no idea what it's like to be a woman.
I pity the people who hate themselves so much they actually try to become someone else but I DESPISE the evil weaklings who insist we must abandon reality and truth in service to a lie.
Judge Van Dyke was attacked by his fellow judges for laying "bare" their hypocrisy.
The whole National Firearms Act of 1934 is an unconstitutional abomination and should be repealed ASAP. The details the good judge elucidated are informative and correct, but should be irrelevant.
But will the spa admit Smallwell?
Judge Van Dyke is obviously brilliant and a real breath of fresh air in the modern judiciary. To start with he actually knows how guns work. The Washington state case is moronic. The allowing of men of any persuasion into a women's space is disgusting. Nothing but pure, unadulterated leftist bullshit ( I will call it exactly what it is) can justify the 9th Circuit's opinion. One can only hope that the case will be brought to the Supreme Court where, with the exception of the three dingbats, actual adults make the rulings.
On this case, it is POSSIBLE that one of the dingbats could actually remember what a woman "is" and vote correctly. But, usually they form a solid phalanx of Leftist idiocy to be counted on. They are an embarrassment to women everywhere. AG
Off topic; from PowerLine today:
There has been a fair amount of speculation on X about Carlson’s video. This is typical; full text:
This photo is hilarious in hindsight.
Trump knew Tucker was talking to Iran.
So he invites him to the Oval Office before the strike… knowing Tucker will run straight back and relay it.
Iran sees this photo.
Thinks Tucker has Trump’s ear.
Thinks Trump is bluffing.
Meanwhile Trump’s sitting there smiling because he wanted them to believe it.
Tucker’s ego sells the deception.
Khamenei buys it.
And just like that Tucker unknowingly helps take out the Supreme Leader… and now Americas biggest traitor may be heading to prison.
Perfectly played.
Best dissent ever.