Tag Archives: courts

A Woke…or Something…State Judge

Posted on by
Reply

A Montana State district judge, Shane Vannatta, is having trouble with reality. He has ruled a law, AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING THE LAWS TO PROVIDE A COMMON DEFINITION FOR THE WORD “SEX” WHEN REFERRING TO A HUMAN unconstitutional because

the bill’s title did not adequately explain whether the word “sex” referred to gender or sexual intercourse and that it did not indicate the words “male” and “female” would be defined in the body of the bill.

Never mind that bill titles typically do not themselves include glossaries or references to glossaries. His plaint that “sex” was unclear in its intended subject in the present title is simply disingenuous since the title explicitly states “when referring to a human”—and does not suggest, even by tenuous innuendo, “when referring to human sex practices.”

Never mind, either that the law’s first paragraph and that paragraph’s first two subparagraphs provide precisely the definitions of interest:

Section 1. Section 1-1-201, MCA, is amended to read:
“1-1-201. Terms of wide applicability. (1) Unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply in the Montana Code Annotated:
(a) “Female” means a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes. An individual who would otherwise fall within this definition, but for a biological or genetic condition, is female.
(b) “Male” means a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes. An individual who would otherwise fall within this definition, but for a biological or genetic condition, is male.

Apparently, Vannatta’s law school training didn’t include a literacy test, nor did it train him in extending his attention span. For the good of the State, especially for the good of Montana’s citizens, he needs to be removed from the bench until he corrects those deficiencies.

Drafting Haredim

Posted on by
Reply

Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that the nation must begin drafting its ultra-Orthodox Jewish men—haredim—into its military.

A panel of nine judges unanimously ruled that there is no legal basis for exempting ultra-Orthodox religious scholars after a series of laws and government decisions carving out service exemptions were either struck down by the court or expired.

And

The ruling also blocks government funding for religious students without a valid military exemption, a decision that experts say could affect tens of thousands of current religious students and tens of millions of dollars in funding, raising the political stakes for the two ultra-Orthodox political parties upon which Netanyahu’s thin parliamentary coalition rests.

My question here isn’t concerned with the stability of the current Israeli government. I wonder, instead, whether this Court ruling will tip the balance in the Knesset toward passing legislation reforming the Israeli Supreme Court and elevating an Israeli concept of Parliamentary superiority, making the Knesset the final authority on what constitutes legitimate Israeli law.

Opposing that, with this ruling purporting to push for more equal treatment of all Israeli Jews (Israel’s Druze minority apparently remain exempt from the draft in this ruling), I wonder if popular opposition to reforming the Court and elevating the Knesset will grow even stronger.

Should be Easy

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Biden administration suit against Tennessee over whether that State can restrict medical treatments for transgender minors.

[T]he court said it would hear the Biden administration’s challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition care, such as medications that can delay the onset of puberty and hormones that can cause physical changes such as the development of facial hair or breasts.

Leave aside the question of whether there is such a thing as “transgender minors.” There is, but they’re exceedingly rare, and those cases are easily identified by physiological factors like stunted development of physical sexual characteristics that are consistent with the child’s DNA-determined sex, or excessive development of physical sexual characteristics that are contrary to the child’s DNA-determined sex.

The Court’s ruling in the Tennessee case should be a short, sweet one-pager: Yes, the State can restrict medical treatments for transgender minors.

What would be nearly as bad as ruling against Tennessee would be the Court expanding on that simple Yes by writing limits—minimum or maximum—to the State’s authority to restrict. Limits on the authority to restrict are themselves political decisions that must be left to the political branches of our Federal government—Congress and the President, or Congress overriding a veto—and to the State governments individually.

A Thought on the Alitos

Posted on by
Reply

News personality Lauren Windsor had a thought regarding Justice Samual Alito and his wife and some flag-flying. A number of letter-writers in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section had thoughts regarding Windsor’s hit piece.

I have my own thought, beginning from this remark by one of the letter-writers who (also) decried Windsor’s piece:

Justice Alito is being blamed for Mrs Alito’s flag flying.

Along with all the other criticisms of Windsor’s dishonesty stands this: she deeply insults Ms Alito, along with women generally, by suggesting that the wife is necessarily subordinate to the husband and that the wife is nothing more than the little woman, who needn’t worry her pretty little head about things that are in the man’s realm of responsibility.

What bigoted, sexist garbage Windsor has spewed.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

A portion of oral argument in Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, et al v US Department of Education was relayed to Southeastern Legal Foundation Executive Director Kim Hermann while she was at a Heritage Foundation conference centered on addressing the Biden administration’s general penchant for putting boys into girls’ locker rooms and sports prioritize[ing] gender identity over sex in a broad range of milieus. That portion:

The judge allegedly asked a Justice Department lawyer to explain what expertise the Department of Education has on human biology and sexuality that justifies judicial deference to the feds’ new interpretation of “sex.” The DOJ lawyer replied “I guess I’m not sure,” according to Hermann’s colleagues.

What a sweeping indictment of Chevron Deference by the Biden administration defendants in the case.