This article quotes crass language for male bodies.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke pre-emptively nuked corporate-media pearl-clutching in his recent dissent from a Ninth Circuit decision forcing a nude, female-only Korean spa frequented by minors to admit men in the name of “trans rights.”
“Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine,” VanDyke wrote. “Sometimes, ‘dignified’ words are employed to mask a legal abomination.”
This was part of VanDyke’s defense for opening his dissent with: “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.” He continues:
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 can all agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — someo as young as thirteen — to be visually assaulted by the real thing.
After VanDyke’s dissent was released on March 12, corporate media mimicked his Ninth Circuit colleagues’ fake horror at crude words used to describe abominable realities.
Reuters went with: “US judges condemn Trump appointee’s ‘vulgar barroom talk’ in their transgender bias case.” The article notes that 27 of VanDyke’s child-hating colleagues on his circuit “denounced VanDyke’s comments as ‘vulgar barroom talk’ that could undermine public trust in the courts” in a written response accompanying the opinions in the case.
“We have a winner for most grotesque Supreme Court audition yet,” was the headline for Slate’s article attacking VanDyke instead of perverts wagging their privates at kids. Of course Slate never attacks the three Supreme Court justices or hundreds of other federal judges who support policies letting sickos chop off kids’ breasts and genitals.
Bloomberg Law’s headline was: “VanDyke Uses Crude Phrase in Case Over Spa’s Transgender Policy.”
Proving VanDyke’s point, reporter Suzanne Monyak quoted from the Ninth Circuit’s collective hysteria over Flannery O’Connor-esque language describing their decision that forces little girls into rooms with naked male strangers. Twenty-nine federal judges left the underlying decision untouched while complaining about VanDyke vividly attacking it.
‘That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion,’ wrote Senior Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by 26 other Ninth Circuit colleagues.
Judge John B. Owens, an Obama appointee, joined by Trump-appointed Judge Danielle Forrest, wrote a separate statement on VanDyke’s dissent with one line: ‘Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this.’
The San Francisco Chronicle might take the cake for most Orwellian headline on this story. It reads: “A Trump-appointed judge used a vulgar term to attack trans women. His colleagues hit back.”
Predictably, corporate media and politicized judges don’t care about strong language when it is used to slam their political opponents. It’s clear they care neither about vulgar language nor about the horrifying reality that they’re enabling the abuse of women and children. Their fake morals are completely subjugated to their political goal of power at all costs.
Vivid proof of this is in the utter lack of judicial outcry, including from the three leftists on the Supreme Court, about the continued death threats against constitutionalist justices to the point that constitutionalists like Clarence Thomas often cannot show their faces in public for fear of being killed by a deranged freak. Look: Threats to judges are a mark of banana republics because such threats obviously influence judicial decisions. Any judge or commentator who claims to care about “vulgarities” and “invective” but does not also demand swift restraint against legitimate death threats to colleagues has no credibility.
Let’s take a couple of other recent examples. In a picture editorial last year, The New York Times lionized federal judges for claiming in opinions and oral arguments the Trump administration was “hallucinating,” engaging in “willful and intentional noncompliance,” full of “racism,” “nonsensical,” “Kafkaesque,” and “a sham.”
CBS News ran a similar package last year, quoting judges calling Trump administration politics “awfully frightening,” accusing it of “repeat[ing] its incantation,” and saying the administration’s challenge to anchor baby policies “boggles my mind.” Last year, USA Today also quoted judges outright calling the Trump administration a liar and claiming it was submitting “sham documents.”
Numerous federal judges have deployed the worst slur in American life against the Trump administration over completely race-neutral policies: “racist.” Federal judges have called the administration “brazen” and “lawless,” characterizing its arguments as “frankly ridiculous” and “demeaning.”
More to VanDyke’s point, it is lawless federal judges themselves who have “undermined public trust in the courts” with decades of patently unconstitutional and politically motivated rulings. Since the New Deal Court legitimized flatly unconstitutional social engineering programs, through the grotesquely meddlesome Warren Court and abominable decisions like Roe v. Wade and Bostock v. Clayton County, federal courts have done the worst damage to themselves with a century of outrageous and abusive rulings combined with the arrogance to assume Americans should submit to their unconstitutional current role as unelected and contradictory superlegislatures.
If lots of courts don’t like the Trump administration, they should consider that a massive part of Trump’s appeal to the American people has been his promise to do something about this century of judicial abuses and usurpations. If courts were restrained, lawful, and prudent in their rulings, rather than constantly inflicting on Americans illegal and moral outrages like shoving mentally ill penis-waggers into rooms of naked women and children, they would find public trust in them quite improved.
Last year, VanDyke also prompted corporate media outrage after issuing a video portion attached to his dissent in a gun case. In the video, he disassembled several guns to demonstrate that his colleagues’ majority ruling rested on factual inaccuracies about how firearm magazines work.
Last month, VanDyke issued a dissent that inferred the notoriously anti-Constitution left-coast circuit was “Wackadoo” for repeatedly ignoring law and Supreme Court precedent in immigration cases. The former solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana, VanDyke “was on a public shortlist for a Supreme Court nomination in Trump’s first term,” Reuters notes.
Trump appointed VanDyke to his Ninth Circuit post in 2019, disregarding a “not qualified” rating for VanDyke’s nomination from the American Bar Association, which apparently accurately assessed he might object to inflicting queer perversions on children. The ABA, however, considers that a disqualification for judicial office — an indictment on every judge who has received a “qualified” ABA rating.
