Judges’ Words Offend Liberal Colleagues More Than The Act He’s Writing About

I grew up during a time when, as kids, we were taught, “Sticks and Stones Can Break Your Bones, But Words Can Never Hurt You.” The idea was not to overreact if someone called you a name or said something that you didn’t agree with.

Somewhere along the line, liberalism changed that. Words are lethal to liberals. Say something, even if it’s true, correction, especially if it’s true, the left will go into full meltdown mode if, in their opinion, the wrong wording was used.

A perfect example of this occurred last week when Judge Lawrence VanDyke triggered his colleagues when he wrote a dissenting opinion on their refusal to rehear the case of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong.

Olympus Spa, a Christian-owned, female-only Korean spa in Washington State, was barred from suing the state on First Amendment grounds for forcing it to allow men pretending to be women.

According to Courthouse News, in 2020, the state’s Human Rights Commission issued a complaint after a transgender woman was denied entry to a spa. The spa then sued the Human Rights Commission on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the state’s policy violated its rights to the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

A federal judge dismissed Olympus Spa’s claim, and in May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

VanDyke, a Trump appointee, delivered a noteworthy dissent, strongly criticizing his colleagues for backing down once again. He opened with a bold statement, remarking that the case centered around “swinging dicks.” He highlighted that the State of Washington allowed men to participate in activities at the Olympus Spa and sharply criticized the Ninth Circuit for endorsing this decision.

Van Dyke, anticipated backlash from his straightforward comment, but he correctly pointed out that young girls were “visually assaulted” by these freaks that were allowed to go to the spa.

He then confronted his snowflake colleagues and chastised them for their cowardice.

“Complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.”

Whether or not liberals think the wording is politically correct or not isn’t the point. This case IS about swing dicks and the owners of the spa, who are Christians, want to operate a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa. Understandably, they don’t want them in their spa, and neither do their female employees nor their female clients.

This is a sickness, and Washington state and the Ninth Circuit Court are infected with it. So deeply infected that the words “swinging dicks” offends them, but allowing young girls to be exposed to them doesn’t.

Let that sink in.

These liberal clowns got their panties twisted over some words after they had the audacity to rule that mentally disturbed men, who want to pretend their women can sachet around young girls, some as young as 13, with their male “packages” exposed.

This is sheer madness. This isn’t being inclusive; this is nothing more than subjecting young girls and women to the liberal madness of something that doesn’t exist. There are two genders, period, and that decision is made while you are in the womb of your mother. You are born either male or female, and if at some point in your troubled life you begin to believe you are something different, you should seek help, not encouragement or phony leftist acknowledgment.

One of the liberal loons, Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, issued a harsh statement along with 28 other Court members, criticizing VanDyke for his inappropriate language and for pursuing entertainment.

“The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.” It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans.”

“That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court.”

“Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.”

Van Dyke was having none of it. He responded with this.

“Finally, I’ll respond briefly to my colleagues’ discomfort with how I’ve written this dissent. My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words, in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself.”

“The public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants. Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about. Male genitalia is precisely (and only) what the Spa, for religious reasons, objects to admitting into its female-only space. The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks is the very reason the shocking language is necessary. The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences of its erroneous opinion. The “ordinary Americans” affected by the majority’s opinion don’t have that luxury. Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine.”

“Sometimes, “dignified and civil” words are employed to mask a legal abomination. Or, to put it in vernacular perhaps more palatable to my colleagues’ Victorian sensibilities: “In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, / But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, / Obscures the show of evil?”

“Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth. I coarsely but respectfully dissent from our court’s willingness to leave this travesty in place.”

To that I say AMEN!

How dare these morons act sanctimoniously when they ruled in favor of psychologically damaging women in order to appear cool to the other freaks on this kangaroo court.

Words are important, and in this case, using the blunt terms that Van Dyke chose were necessary to emphasize the absurdity of this court’s decision.

I find it ironic that whenever I hear the last name Van Dyke, the first person who comes to mind is “Dick.”

Just a coincidence, I’m sure.