From "Some Judges See Risks in Fiery Opinions Warning of Threats to Democracy/Federal judges are weighing strategies for how to respond to the high stakes, anonymous threats and politicized atmosphere of the Trump era" (NYT)(gift link).
So what's the big "profanity"? It's the expression "swinging dicks," and it appears 3 times — is that "repeatedly"? — in VanDyke's opinion:
This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa. Their female employees and female clients don’t want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit.
You may think that swinging dicks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion. You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa—some as young as thirteen—to be visually assaulted by the real thing....
In 2020, a man attempted to use WLAD’s antidiscrimination mandate to gain access to Olympus Spa, the state’s only traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa....
Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about. Male genitalia is precisely (and only) what the Spa, for religious reasons, objects to admitting into its female-only space. The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks is the very reason the shocking language is necessary....
The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences of its erroneous opinion. The “ordinary Americans” affected by the majority’s opinion don’t have that luxury. Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine....
পোস্টগুলি
৭৭টি মন্তব্য:
A jurisprudence variant on civility bullshit.
Swinging dicks isn't profanity. It's the law!
People object also to "pussy" which is rather often exactly the right word.
He made his point clear. The leftist judges on the panel all were far more offended by his dissent than by the the dicks swinging in the women victims' faces at their "women-only" spa.
Whatever happened the fever for "Safe Spaces?" Did it break?
This is exactly like the citizens reading excerpts from books of raunchy sexual instruction / indoctrination for children, from the grade school libraries, and being shut down by the school board because it's 'not suitable for this meeting'. Trying to tamp down these sentiments instead of addressing the issues is guaranteed to make it worse, it's squeezing the balloon. It will provoke more forceful expressions of the same sentiment.
Deal with it. Show some leadership and recognize your constituents have a point.
Side note: Is it just me, or is it increasingly the case that elections almost seem to be the formalization of events that are orchestrated and already finalized behind the scenes? Case in point, the whirlwind appearance of Mamdani as a candidate Unknown, then suddenly Front Runner, and then suddenly, the new Mayor. How long do they think people will put up with it?
Whatever happened TO the fever for "Safe Spaces?"
Good point Aggie.
I think they were more offended by "swinging" than "dicks." He's not saying "dicks" to point at the penis. He's using the phrase with the "swinging" to accuse various men of posturing in a domineering way. And it's not just the transgender persons who go to the Korean spa. It's also the judges who are forcing the spa to accept penises in the women's naked spaces. Of course, they were offended.
Related.
It’s not a threat to democracy, it’s a threat to Democrats.
"Twenty-seven of his colleagues from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, admonishing him in their opinion for 'vulgar barroom talk' that 'makes us sound like juveniles, not judges."
If the shoe fits. It was the hubris of jejune judges that have put women (the real kind, not the medical monstrosities) at needless at risk just to satisfy a trifling minority' unquenched sexual appetites. A healthy society cannot satisfy everyone. Already, the so-called rights of minor attracted person are on the table in some communities. Feet must be put down somewhere, or government by laws will be made redundant.
Is “vociferous” the right word to describe the judges’ usage?
Missing tag: civility bullshit
NYT writers and editors are expert at using language to obscure an issue rather than illuminate it. I noticed this twisted phrase near the end of the quoted text: "politicized atmosphere of the Trump era." By linking them in this text the NYT suggests that it is Trump's fault there is a "politicized atmosphere" but in the wider culture it is the left that literally politicizes everything.
The hideous person Hillary Clinton used to bray all the time, "The personal is political," making it clear in case us normies weren't understanding that they meant to politicize everything, even our own personal feelings or choices.
And leftist judges have run wild, ruling on things that are far out of their purview, even after repeated slaps down from SCOTUS. So what is to make of these politicized judges, who have now been caught conspiring with Biden's Special Counsel prior to suing Trump and attempting to strip him of any executive privilege.
More injunctions have been filed against Trump than all other presidents in my lifetime put together. Sometimes outrageous facts like that carry their own condemnation of the actors. Especially with their yuge losing streak on appeal. What is Trump's record? 92-2?
Can't put the beautiful first lady on any fashion covers. Why?
Politics.
Yes, this is much like the "how dare you read out loud the books we put in the library for your first grader! It's obscene!" kerflufles.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
Oh no, lefty judges are having cases of the vapors.
Hmmm, lets see. Who over the last 25 years (just to choose a number) have coarsened society?
Lets see what answers we get.
This is Trump's core legacy in politics: He broke all the formality, politeness, and political correctness taboos. The left aggressively weaponized language with the rise of "hate speech" laws and prosecution circa the G.H.W. Bush era. This is another example of that method.
"Juvenile" is as juvenile does. We have a Supreme Court justice too juvenile to understand "woman."
Liberal misogyny leaning into progressive gender confusion.
Before you know it judges will accuse each other of jestermaxxing, merely talking about swinging dick instead of doing it for real.
Sort of off topic, but Professor Althouse hasn't posted a really political story for the day. Democrats in Philly are now marching around rallies saying things like "For every US Soldier who comes back in a casket, we cheer!" Of course they are marching alongside various illegal and maybe "refugee" that Biden no doubt let in. And maybe even some "naturalized" citizens who weren't born here.
Why shouldn't we deport as many of these people as we can, strip the citizenship of anyone who was naturalized and then deport them, and shun the actual remaining Democrats? Cheering for the other side to kill our soldiers is perilously close to treason, is it not?
Protruding penises in simulated pussy hats or just fashions in drag?
I thought the phrase was vulgarity and not profanity, but I’m not a language person.
JournoListic Intelligence (JI)
So, what have we leared... learned today?
"People say lots of things about Judge VanDyke, but nobody could 'helicopter' like Larry...nobody!"
It's protected speech under judicial parody laws.
"You may think that swinging dicks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion. You’re not wrong."
"I thought the phrase was vulgarity and not profanity ..."
You're not wrong, either.
The use of coarse language is always a sign that one is unable to make clear exactly what he means, and instead settles for making it clear how strongly he means it.
Every fucking time!
Nobody likes the kid that points out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Judicial euphemisms would be overtly jejune in the woke of liberal license and indiscretion.
Has anything or anyone done more damage to our justice system than these leftist district court judges?
He wrote that his use of 'indecorous language,' helped 'bear the truth.'
All too often, decorous language has been put in the service of lies. I like decorum as much as the next guy, I regret its demise, but if it's a choice between decorum and truth, then I bid a sad farewell to decorum.
“Cheering for the other side to kill our soldiers is perilously close to treason, is it not?”
I, for one, think it qualifies…
Twenty-seven of his colleagues from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed
"Why twenty-seven? If I were wrong, one would have been enough"
Profanity is now a right-wing "threat to (D)emocracy(TM)?"
There are many reasons for people to speak in subdued tones, to use ellipses and euphemisms, and to otherwise soften the impact of their strongly held beliefs. Occasionally, those reasons are overcome by the need to plant your flag at the summit of Mount Suribachi.
Time will tell as we see whether the flag will fall. If it doesn't, the indecorousness will be justified.
Meanwhile, Democrats are dropping the F-bomb all over the media to show everyone how hip yet serious they are.
How many 9th circuit judges object to that?
How many of those 27 realized that to the public they sound like blithering idiots for allowing swinging dicks into women only spaces? And like pedophile lovers for allowing them into spaces with minor children?
If it takes "juvenile" language to bring wide attention to the ridiculous ruling- then so be it, it takes juvenile language for the educated to understand.
Clarity should be preeminent in legal writiing (who am i kiddimg)
Time for another tag: “ Decorous BS”.
The reaction to the judge's colorful language is sort of a first cousin to the way left/MSM immediately express concern about the repercussions to the Muslim community after a Muslim terror attack. Forget about the victims, just direct the concern toward how the victims (or in this case the dissenting judge) might respond. They are both attempts to distract from the real issues. Look, squirrel!
Apparently the writer of the NYT article never served in the military. That particular colorful appellation was a particular favorite of my drill sergeant. In fact most of us thought it designated our rank.
The ninth circuit merely wants to massage the referenced issue, and in that, they could have my support.
Another mendacious gimmick the NYT and other lefty media employ is the editorial voice thinly disguised in the "some people say" assertion--here used as "some judges say." Of course, that automatically also means that "some judges do NOT say," an observation left on the cutting room floor. The constant use of this trick is designed to induce in the reader the conviction that "some people say" means "most people say." Just sayin'.
When judges give a golden entry ticket to perves ( usually with severe autogynophilia ) and then pretend they are Nobel defenders of society, they deserve to be mocked by colleges that don’t varnish the obvious consequences of the decisions. The most amazing thing about this travesty decision is that a secular bathhouse somehow could prohibit the entry - but because the owners are religious, their objects are seen as discrimination and prejudice. That was the other truth stated in the dissent.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke repeatedly used a profanity to refer to male genitalia in a dissent from a ruling on a transgender discrimination case
What a lying dirtbag.
The case was about women's privacy, and its violation by men. Which is why "swinging dicks" was the correct thing to write. Because it focused on the truth behind the lies of "transgender discrimination".
Meh, it's the Ninth Circus. Such clownish complaints from his co-workers are expected.
I thought VanDyke's argument was clear, and it needed "swinging" added. These men wanting to enter all women spaces in the nude aren't wanting to do so with some modicum of respect and modesty. They are also not waiting for post op. They want to walk in and show off their junk. I think businesses that want to cater to women only should have a right to do so, and by women, we mean those without swinging dicks.
Besides, while "dick" or "penis" may be an alternative; suggesting they are "swinging" is allowing the argument that these men are not sexually aroused with erect dicks for entering these spaces with nude women. If it still offends that the dicks are flaccid, then it just gets worse.
If we're going to be introducing any new tags, I suggest "The Vandyke Dick Show".
It is a sign of our legal and moral decline that perverts get to use the legal system to force people to look at their genitalia.
Not sure what this means for my neo jazz quartet The Swinging Dicks (we're all conveniently named Richard) when I try to book gigs in the Bay Area.
The judge Trumped 'em. Now, thousands of more people are aware of the situation.
Just like Trump mis-stating, or exaggerating something, tricking the press into headlining his "mistake", when Trumps intention was to amplify the situation.
"Trump lies govt paid six billion for sex changes.! It was only five billion!"
It paints an unflattering picture and that's what they find really objectionable.
There are 670 district court judges 27 ain't nothin. They can all fuck off and die!!!!!!
I hate the dicksie chicks
As if a guy with a BA in philosophy from Swathmore knows much about judicial opinions.
"The public could perceive rulings as motivated by political animus, instead of the basic application of law to the facts of a case." Judge Boasberg and other on DC trial court bench constantly act with political animus.
And this NYT guys writes that some judges are making "aggressive interpretations of the law." More like strict statutory construction that liberals don't like.
The 8th Circuit just joined the 5th Circuit on an immigration case and the Left is in complete meltdown over it because the ruling doesn't align with their liberal values of allowing illegal aliens to stay in the US.
The Left needs to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president and he is acting in the best interests of the United States and not working for illegal aliens or the IRGC and mullahs who want to kill us.
Many Dems are opposed to what Trump has done in disarming Iran because they hate Trump. That's crazy!
And don't forget the SOTU when the Dems wouldn't stand when Trump asked them to stand up for Americans.
The good thing is that Marco Rubio and JD Vance don't have that Trump personality that sets some people off. I'll add that when I met Rubio in person (twice) he just exudes likableness. Hard to hate Marco.
The liberal judges exude toxic masculinity and fetal... fatal femininity following principles of critical RAAT theory and exhibit symptoms of gender spectrum dissonant euphoria.
Yes, incorrect usage of " vociferous," which just means "talks a lot." These sorts always get "vitriolic" wrong, also.
I'm seeing these kinds of infelicities more and more often, and I think the cause is insufficient reading: they've encountered the word enough that it's a negative term for speech but have not read enough context to figure out what it specifically means.
I love judge VanDyke. He's the same guy that made an educational video explaining firearm terminology and laws to his lefty colleagues as part of his dissent. He was excoriated for that, also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6GDRCaeeg
Pulte still at it.
Trump housing chief Bill Pulte seeks new DOJ probe of New York AG Letitia James ~ MSNOW
'After Trump's DOJ failed to convict New York AG Letitia James on charges of mortgage fraud, Trump housing chief Bill Pulte has filed a new criminal referral to DOJ — this time, asking prosecutors to investigate James for insurance fraud.'
Donald Trump says officials who opened probe into Jay Powell showed ‘courage’ ~ FT
Trump-English translation: “ they showed the cowardice I demand and expect.”
Pirro is another one of Trump’s incompetent game show personalities dredged from lowest common denominator targeted TV entertainment for pulp craniums. What a surprise this went nowhere. If that’s what passes for courage in Trump’s mind he’s got even less time left than we thought.
The weaponization of the DOJ, the naked targeting of political opponents, the complete incompetence of the lawyers now working there is astounding.
eanine Pirro: the rare prosecutor who seems to believe the criminal justice system exists primarily as a customer-service desk for presidential grudges.
Watching Pirro denounce the ruling is like watching someone angrily complain that gravity is biased against them after jumping off a roof. Pirro's circus is an increasingly awkward collision between cable-news theatrics and the basic requirements of evidence, law, and reality.
Lawyers should not be filing frivolous lawsuits at Trumps behest but until there are consequences (ie, disbarment) they will continue.
Pirro deputy admits feds couldn’t find criminal evidence against Powell ~ The Hill
"An assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged to a federal judge earlier this month that the Justice Department had no criminal evidence against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
Andrew Massucco, a deputy to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, made the admission to Judge James Boasberg on March 3, according to a sealed transcript of the hearing that was reviewed by The Associated Press.
Federal prosecutors sought a subpoena from a grand jury to probe Powell’s statements to the Senate Banking Committee on a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters.
President Trump, who has pressured Powell to lower interest rates, has suggested there was criminality tied to the project.
The cost of renovating the headquarters was originally expected to be $1.9 billion according to a 2022 estimate.
“So what false statements did (Powell) make before Congress?” Boasberg asked Massucco, according to the AP.
“Well, we don’t know is my first answer. However, there are certain areas that he addressed that caused concern,” Massucco said.
Boasberg then asked about the DOJ’s evidence of fraud or criminal misconduct.
“Again, we do not know at this time. However, there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it,” Massucco said.
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/2037288378488471985
A sealed transcript tell me another fairy tale
Perhaps I am repeating other commenters, but if you are more offended by the blunt characterization of the action that you are condoning than the action itself, perhaps you should pause and reflect. I am reminded of the line from “Why Don’t the English teach Their Children How to Speak,” “the French don’t care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly.”
It is also a recognized principle in both debate and legal argument that you should understand your opponent’s argument well enough to explain it more clearly and accurately than they can.
Its not about equity or liberty or any other thing
This whole thing reminds me of Libs of TicTok - getting offended by the right clearly setting forth exactly what the left is saying and spreading.
As patton said of rommel 'i read your book'
If the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen these types of insane rulings, they might have just skipped the whole Revolution thing.
'vulgar barroom talk' that 'makes us sound like juveniles'
I'd ask what the juveniles are doing in the barroom, but undoubtedly the 9th has an opinion on the inalienable right of a minor-attracted person to get a child liquored up
"Swinging dicks" is NOT a profanity . Not even mine.
Did not the non deluded child remark notice emperor's swinging dick visible to all
Little Excursion™️ said...
The weaponization of the DOJ, the naked targeting of political opponents, the complete incompetence of the lawyers now working there is astounding.
That was a true statement during the Biden Admin.
But of course you were in favor of it them, because you're a lying scumbag and worthless piece of shit
"... politicized atmosphere of the Trump era..." Like we can't remember the last administration.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.