Alchemy, Gorsuch, and Tyranny

How awful was the Harris decision?  The one involving a 'trans-sexual', written by Gorsuch?

It was far more horrible than most people suspect.  Hadley Arkes lays it out for you.

Before we get to that, let's remind you that this decision will NOT be limited to 'employment,' as the deluded non-thinkers in the MSM and many other places of influence would have you believe.  Gorsuch's claim in that regard is almost laughable, like the claims often made by teen-aged children which provoke a bemused smile and shake of the head from parents.

...Gorsuch remarked that his judgment did not reach the matter of bathrooms and locker rooms, for those situations were not contained in the case at hand. But Justice Alito quickly pointed out that the holding had been, after all, that it was wrong to turn away from anyone – to withhold a job or a benefit – because of an aversion to a person’s sexual choice of changing genders.  That judgment would presumptively apply to all instances of that discrimination, and indeed the first case has already been pressed on the side of a transgendered high-school girl, seeking admission to a boys’ bathroom....

That's a terrible, awful, no-good result in and of itself.  But was it the worst one?  Hardly.  We'll get to it with this snippet as prelude:

...Gorsuch had not exactly said that Stephens had changed his biological sex.  My friend Gerard Bradley distilled things in this way:  In the biological sciences, “sex is binary, innate, and immutable.”  And it goes beyond anatomical differences to penetrate to the level of cells.

But “gender identity,” as he says, “denotes a fluid belief system based on cultural constructs, emotion, experiences.”

Gorsuch and the Court can preserve their detachment on the question of whether a man can become a woman only if they simply ignore that inescapable, objective truth of what constitutes “sex.” ...

Now for that which is truly frightening.

Gorsuch did not have to say anything conclusive on that question of whether Stephens had in fact become a woman.   He could simply use his alchemy of “textualism,” working on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and settle on this limited point: that if Stephens came to regard himself as a woman, that is an understanding that the rest of us are obliged to respect when it comes to “discrimination on the basis of sex.”

It is "alchemy" indeed, and it's an alchemy which is tyranny, for the power most sought by the tyrant  is to force his subjects to acknowledge a lie as 'truth.'  It is that power which humiliates the subject the most; it is the power of which Solzhenitsyn fervently warned.

Do not dream that only individuals can be tyrants.  States which include 'representatives' in their structure have tyrannical capabilities and often exercise them.  Just ask the Uighurs, or the Kulaks, or the Jews who used to be alive in pre-WWII Germany.

Thanks, "Federalist" Society and Heritage Foundation.  Thanks a lot.