When Reality And The Law Meet

Well, here’s some fun — and it took place in Britishland of all places, where more stupid laws have recently been passed than in any country outside the ‘Stans or California.

The Supreme Court in London has ruled that, for the purposes of judging matters of equality, terms like ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, not gender.

Campaigners have hailed the “death” of self-identification as the UK Supreme Court in Westminster ruled on Wednesday morning that the UK’s Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological women and biological sex”.

The court has ruled: “The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”

Judge Lord Patrick Hodge said in the ruling that the body of five judges had unanimously agreed that a man with a Gender Recognition Certificate, a UK legal paper that recognises that person’s assumed gender when it is other than their biological sex, could not be counted as a woman when it came to equality legislation.

Excuse me for a second…

Oooooh the trannies are going to go apeshit — but nobody of right mind is going to care.

Frankly, I’m just appalled that it took fucking lawyers to state (unanimously, even!) the obvious fact that right-thinking people have always known.

I love the pic that Breitbart used:


I kinda feel the same way.

Elsewhere:

The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary officially recognized the scientific fact that there are only two genders, in the nation’s constitution.

The 15th amendment to the Hungarian constitution was overwhelmingly ratified by Budapest’s Országgyűlés parliament this week by a margin of 140 votes in favour to 21 votes against, Magyarnemzet reported.

But wait!  There’s MOAR!

The 15th Amendment will also impact other areas of civil society, for instance, enshrining the right for Hungarians to pay for goods and services with cash money.

It comes amid increasing efforts within Europe and elsewhere to institute Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCS), which opponents warn would enable more state controls on how people spend their own money.

I’d like to see that enshrined here too, purely as a prophylactic measure.  Because I don’t trust government, any government and even the one we’ve got here at the moment.

And I have the Founding Fathers on my side.

The REAL Big Loser?

Last week the Supreme Court dealt what seems to be a massive blow to the bureaucracy of the modern Administrative State — wherein an agency can become a de facto mini-state by creating and interpreting its own regulations, and then enforcing them without much in the way of legal oversight and defense.

The beacon in this ruling is SEC v. Jarkesy, which noted “…the Securities Exchange Commission’s power to serve as enforcer, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner in administrative proceedings for violating the securities laws. The Court found that the defendants are entitled to a jury trial before an Article III judge.”

Needless to say, the gun guys — especially these folks, from whom I excerpted and modified the previous paragraph — who have long suffered such iniquity at the hands of the loathsome Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) agency, are all over this.

However, lost in all this excitement is the agency which I think has the most to lose from Jarkesy  (and the earlier Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision).

I refer here to the still-more loathsome Internal Revenue Service (IRS), who have always been able to bludgeon taxpayers in this manner.  They have their own regulations, their own courts and, lest we forget, a veritable army of well-armed minions who are only too willing to enforce their agency’s regulatory diktat.  I remember seeing on TV an excellent summary of the power of the IRS when a judge said, “So basically, in order to win your case against this man, all the IRS has to do is prove that they followed their own internal procedures properly?”  to which the IRS lawyer said, “Yes, your Honor.”

Massive rafts of tax law have given birth to an entire world of tax lawyers and -accountants (both in private practice and in the IRS itself), which is in itself excessive and burdensome.  (I am reminded of the way colonial Hong Kong collected income tax:  once a year the taxpayer took to the tax office his employer’s statement of his gross salary paid, and he would write out a cheque for 5% of that total to the government.  That’s it.  Imagine the impact of that scenario in the United States today.)

Anyway, I’m not only not a lawyer, but I also don’t play one on TV and I sure as hell don’t play one on this blog.  But I am generally cognizant of the bigger picture, and I’m just wondering if the greatest losers of the Lopez Bright  and Jarkesy  decisions will not be the horrible SEC, EPA and ATF, but the fouler-still IRS.

I am sure that the Powdered Wigs among my Readership will be only too pleased to set me straight.