Will the US federal judiciary continue to annoy us — into needing to eliminate it from our existence?

20 April 2025

Today, we are news-jabbed into asking . . .

. . . whether the United States' federal judiciary is disproportionately occupied by mind-lacking Democratic Party dumbasses.

For example

The following instance of judicial pointlessness comes from having put a large, interminably interfering, and intellectually vacuous bunch of egos on the federal bench.

From The Epoch Times:

A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration’s executive order banning the use of an “X” on passports marked by people self-identifying as neither male nor female.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick of the District Court of Massachusetts awarded the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) a preliminary injunction on April 18, staying the president’s executive action requiring sex, instead of gender identity, to be used as an identifier on government-issued identification documents.

“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote.

“That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”

Recall, here . . .

. . . that a preliminary injunction falls under control of the following legal parameters:

A court needs to examine whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,

whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction,

whether the balance of equities and hardships is in the plaintiff's favor,

and

whether an injunction is in the public interest.

It should be reasonably obvious that . . .

. . . someone claiming to be what, in most instances, they are reasonably not — does not work to the government's overwhelming interest in accurately identifying who someone is.

Furthermore, it is not at all obvious that pretending to be what one is genetically not — is a minority right that must be honored to the detriment of the government's interest in classifying people in a workably accurate manner.

We can, for instance, all pretend to be something that makes us feel good. Like I become Captain America in my own mind.

However, honoring that fantasy — as assessed from the perspective of someone who is not me — does not become a requirement for purportedly 'humane' and lawful governance.

In short, properly argued to a legally fair-minded subsequent court, there is no reasonable way that the government is going to lose this case.

And that should have been obvious to Judge Koblick. She should have denied the request for a preliminary injunction on that ground.

Evidently, Her Honor has an society-molding axe to grind. And that has become exactly the problem with an increasing portion of the American judiciary, both state and federal.

Let's review — according to Judge Kobick . . .

Somehow the government's previous hundreds of years of recognizing the only two existing and generally readily identifiable genders:

which was impulsively and intellectually unpersuasively overturned by the Biden administration

on the basis of nothing that is biologically, visibly, and (usually) easily and instantly provable

(as directly related to a passport's sole purpose of identification)

is now, suddenly, to be honored

as having bestowed a new, shining and purportedly miraculously necessary right

upon the tiny portion of the American public

who deems itself worthy of deliberately obfuscating one of Reality's most easily identifiable characteristics.

A thought experiment . . .

. . . about practicality and unintended consequences.

Let's say a I (as a biological male) have an X on my passport.

I'm feeling feminine today, so I become a purported woman and prance through Customs in that happy-making outfit.

Two weeks later — feeling less feminine and more Male Captain America-ish — I trot through that same Customs as the re-appendaged me.

What purpose has my X-marked passport then served?

Other than to identify me as someone given to wearing disguises of one kind or another?

When identity questions do arise, is Customs going to have to spirit me away to look for a more accurate proof of my identity — thereby narrowing the possibilities to one-half the human population?

Is this kind of occasionally and arguably necessary intrusiveness really what we are trying to accomplish?

Taking the above example a few steps further

Let's say that I don't like my white heritage and claim to be black:

Should my passport have a 'R' that indicates that I'm racially indecipherable?

Or I don't like being short, so I claim to be tall and wear leg extensions to make that point:

Should an 'H' on my passport indicate that Customs has no authority to use my height as one index of identity corroboration?

How about I don't like my eye color — or my eyeballs' iris constructions?

Does my passport now have to list an 'EB' indicating that my eyeballs are off limits to Customs' identification inquiries?

The moral? — If we leave these 'woke' Judicial Branch vacuities in charge . . .

. . . Western Civilization will be obliterated, purely on the basis of their arbitrarily and randomly injected feeble-brained chaos.

We might think of them as civilization-destroying termites.

PeteFree.com

Will the US federal judiciary continue to annoy us — into needing to eliminate it from our existence?