Conservatives have long criticized federal judges, especially on the
Supreme Court
, who interpret the
Constitution
in ways that are convenient for liberal ideology by making huge leaps of logic as to the meaning of the law. Many were shockingly displeased when Republican justices did so in 2020.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, a majority that included Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts
ruled
that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination. The
text
of the historic law makes absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or âgender identity,â a philosophical concept that was not mainstream in society until just recently, certainly not in American jurisprudence. The âbecause we said soâ reasoning in Gorsuchâs opinion is what we were left with.
SWEETHEART HUNTER PLEA IS A GIFT TO BIDEN AND TRUMP
That radical decision legally redefined the concept of gender so that any law âdiscriminatingâ based on biological reality was an attack on a protected class. In a federal ruling
yesterday
on child sex changes, the chickens came home to roost in perhaps the most destructive way yet.
Obama-appointed Judge Jay Moody
struck down
Arkansasâs ban on cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and transgender surgeries for children. âThe law prohibits medical care that only transgender people choose to undergo, i.e, medical or surgical procedures related to gender transition,â Moody wrote. Citing Bostock, he added that âdiscrimination for being transgender is discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’â
Itâs clear that Moody desperately wanted to block the bill as a matter of politics. Much of his ruling depends on âevidence presented at trialâ from doctors regarding the medical efficacy of âgender-affirming care,â which is the topic of intense debate not only in America but
all over the world
. But the Bostock precedent allowed Moody at least to pretend that his ruling was legally sophisticated, that he relied on something more legitimate than his partisan whims.
Moody isnât the only official to do this.
President Joe Bidenâs
Department of Education wants to force schools to put males who identify as females in womenâs
sports
and
bathrooms
under Title IX, a statute that is supposed to protect women from discrimination based on their biology and sexual assault. The administration’s
proposed
regulations
repeatedly, and misleadingly, reference Bostock, even though Bostock involved not Title IX but Title VII. The Education Department wouldnât need to take the blame for redefining gender because someone else did it already.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Legislators passed civil rights laws in the 20th century to end discrimination based on skin color or biological sex. Voters today want their representatives to end other evil practices, namely
allowing
boys to violate girls sexually in
bathrooms
or
locker rooms
and castrating children who have been told they were born in the wrong body. Unelected jurists want to override those laws based on the absurd claim that the former group of laws was intended to thwart them. That is not something that happens in a functioning republic or a just society.
The state of Arkansas plans to appeal Moodyâs ruling. The sooner someone is able to force this back up to the high court and force it to reckon with its disastrous Bostock decision, the better.
Hudson Crozier is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.
