“6 Stupid Arguments About Hobby Lobby From Dumb Liberals”
Let me preface this by saying that, as with the 9-0 ruling on the Recess and Appointments Clauses, I’m not sure this is quite the victory we wish it would be, mostly because the Court didn’t really address the core first amendment principle of freedom of association. But when you know going in you’ll have 4 votes against and you don’t know if Anthony Kennedy ate bad clams or John Roberts is feeling like he needs a pet on the head from the WaPo, you take what you can get.’
I do know this, though. Sandra Fluke is irate. And that’s a win no matter what the context.
However, there is one I’d like to discuss in more detail, because it foreshadows what’s already being systemically instituted by the left as a bit of legal reasoning, even though it is not and is clearly and defiantly at odds with the very idea of individual sovereignty. Fittingly, it was offered up by Harry Reid, who argued “It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women” — the obvious suggestion being that there is a separate “logic” (vertical or horizontal, I can never remember which) that comes with your plumbing, and one can’t presume to rule on the other, unless of course we had 5 female justices ruling on things that affect men and women both, in which case that would of course be fine. Because of the because.
This idea that individual men cannot interpret or apply law that affects a particular (and non-uniform) identity group — after all, it seems to me that the 5 men spoke for an awful lot of conservative / constitutionalist women with this decision, although I suppose those kinds of women are the real kind, suffering as they do from false consciousness and their embeddedness in a patriarchal paradigm that is rigged to thwart their liberties — is the kind of thing that Said pushed in his Orientalism: the only authentic voice for a particular group comes from those who adopt the official group narrative and will it into ascension. All others are forbidden to comment on the “truths” that then belong to the group narrative — or if they do so, they do so with no standing, and therefore illegitimately.
Precisely the kind of thing that leads to Sharia law being instituted, or ridiculous special dispensation for some aggrieved identity bloc or other under the false and poisonous assertion that the ascendent group narrative is representative of the entirety of the group, reducing individuals putatively within the group who disagree to apostates, heretics, Uncle Toms, “anti-feminists,” and so on.
This is the kind of thinking the comes with the acceptance of consensus meaning and a will to power, the very linguistic substructure I’ve been writing about for years that we need to root out of our epistemology by its twisted, tangled, vegetation killing tendrils.
It is “thinking” like this, after all, that leads to ludicrous and (to me) clearly unconstitutional policies like district set-asides for black politicians, or a quota system for representation — one that resembles a crayon box on the outside but, where it matters, represents a crushing uniformity of opinion, with each group representative both cognizant of and supportive toward the political weight of controlling an identity bloc and dictating its public interests.
Which is just a long way of saying it’s about time Harry Reid stopped deciding who should be speaking for women — particularly, given his argument, when he’s a man making the suggestion. The patriarchal oppressor and penis waver.
But then, trying to reason with Harry Reid is like trying to teach a rutabaga to play the flute: It can be done, but not without turning the rutabaga into something sentient and capable of thought first.