What did the Supreme Court decide today?
Korean.
Pardon?
Alito and Sotomayor were pushing hard for pizza, but Korean won out. You would think the Justices would each order their own lunches, but tradition demands a communal meal. Huge waste of time, too. Takes hours. And then there’s always a fight over whether they should get delivery or send a clerk to pick it up. An incredibly inefficient use of the Court’s valuable time.
You just gonna fuck around for the whole post?
Let’s see!
I repeat my initial query.
The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of recognizing the basic human rights of a subset of the population.
“Basic human rights” was 6-3?
Hey, “basic human rights” has been on the losing side of 9-0 before.
I have a feeling you’re using loaded and biased language to make a complicated issue seem like a simple one.
I totally am! Well spotted!
Can’t get one by me. Without editorializing, what actually happened?
A word was redefined. Actually, it was most likely defined for the first time.
Explain.
What does “sex” mean?
It means the world to my wife and I. That’s how we connect.
Now you’re fucking around!
We’re scamps. You want me to define “sex?”
Yes.
Uh.
Right. There’s the physical act, but what counts? Sloppy second is not sex, but sloppy third is absolutely sex. Or are you talking about gender? Biological determinism or metaphysical essentialism? “Sex” also means “six” in German. The word “sex” is like the word “love” in that it means so many things as to render itself useless for close-in work. It’s a vague word, and those should not appear in legal documents.
What legal documents are we talking about here?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
An incredibly legal document.
Laws issue forth from it! That’s how legal that document is!
Settle down, Beavis. What’s the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Well, the name kinda explains it. The main thrust of it was: Stop treating black people that way. Had to let ’em vote, live where they wanted, use the town pool, that sort of thing. The differently-religioned and ladies got thrown in, but it was mostly about black folks.
Thrown in?
“Sex” was added to the list of protected attributes–race, color, national origin–at the last minute by a powerful Democratic Senator from Virginia looking to poison the bill.
Wow.
Maybe. He was a virulent racist, but he did go on to support the ERA. So he could’ve been sincere. It’s complicated. Let’s just note that “sex” was a last-minute addition that no one put any thought into.
So noted.
A new protected class was formed, but its parameters weren’t defined. It’s like trying to enforce a dress code at a nudist colony.
Is it?
Probably not. I don’t think that was my strongest simile. I’ll recover, though.
You’re a soldier.
The question, therefore, was What the fuck does “sex” mean? Does it mean identity or orientation?
We’ve already determined I am unable to answer that.
It’s unanswerable. I mean, it’s unanswerable now. In 1964, “you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex” meant “you’re not allowed to fire chicks.” Legal protection for homosexuals was absolutely, positively, 100% not what the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 meant by “sex.” Gay rights wasn’t a thing in 1964, not in the U.S. Congress. And it CERTAINLY wasn’t intended to apply to those lovely transgender folks. The idea that the Title VII protections accorded on basis of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were supposed to be afforded to homosexuals and transgenders is laughable. From an Originalist view, a broad reading of statute is unthinkable.
So why don’t we go with that?
Because Originalism is fucking dumb. It demands that laws be interpreted according to the original, contemporaneous intent of their framers. Which you’ll realize requires telepathic time travel. There’s no way to know what Congress meant by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and even if there were, which Congress Member are we talking about? Just the writer? Or does the text itself–as though it were sentient–have a will, an intent which can be plumbed? The entire philosophy of Originalism just repeating “What he meant to say was…” over and over, but in Latin.
We shouldn’t go with that.
I admire your velocity in adopting new positions.
You’re so sweet.
So if we remove the option of holding a seance and asking the dead Congressmen what they meant by “sex,” then what’s left is the actual language of the law. This is called Textualism. It’s the legal version of the “Death of the Author” theory
Oh, I Iove that theory. You can make up whatever bullshit you want.
That’s how the legal version works, too! Which is how the Court found 6-3 today that firing someone cuz they were gay or trans was prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It sounds like you’re unhappy with the ruling.
Not with the effects. I believe in equal protection under the law, and I furthermore believe that many groups of Americans have been denied these rights. The expansion of full citizenship is always a positive. I am in utter favor of the results of the decision.
But?
Everyone involved pulled all of this out of their asses. For 60 years straight! It’s just been sloppy improvisation for 60 years straight! It’s just so…so…
Bush league?
Are there beers left?
I think so.
Recent Comments