[Lurker]

The “original intent” arguments are going to be a hoot. Someone will have to argue with a straight face that the 1964 Congress intended this law to protect men who claim to be women and vice versa.

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will rule that way, however. Because penumbras.

L

[Freee-dame]

Language protecting gender identity was snuck into the so-Called anti-lynching Bill right after the Jussie Smollett fakery. Lynching in this law is defined as any attack ( no matter how mild) on people of many identities (all but white males?). Watch the Supreme Court’s liberals use this law as precedent.

[Stravinsky]

Indeed.

Why bother having a Congress if the courts can just read whatever they want into 50+year old laws?

[DiogenesLamp]

The “original intent” arguments are going to be a hoot. Someone will have to argue with a straight face that the 1964 Congress intended this law to protect men who claim to be women and vice versa.

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will rule that way, however. Because penumbras.

Ping to "x".