Even When They Get Shit Right, Courts Are Corrupt Institutions.

 

So this Peltier v Charter Day School case proves my point, and specifically, we need judicial opinion reform.   For the briefest of recaps, original case was against a charter school for a mandatory girls wear skirts line in the dress code.

Case ended up in a full court review at the Fed appeals court.  The dress code was ruled again to be unconstitutional because charter schools are taking tax payer money to do tax payer work, and are state actors (as opposed to really private schools.). And as a result, have to follow the Constitution, and shit.

Now the dissent, which gadfly retired constitutional law prof  Ann Althouse was impressed by, was a brain fart of  such spectacular idiocy?  In short, was not based on law, but personal and cultural biases of the judges who signed on to it.

The need for opinion reform.  

Granted, this was a dissent, and usually they are given more leeway for personal delusions and disordered thinking.  However.  If your argument in a dissent basically boils down to liking an idea more than the constitution actually requires a particular result, and the majority decision ignores that and is wrong on the law?  Then keep your stupid admiration and biases the fuck to your self.  Do your fucking job.  As an American taxpayer I pay federal appellate judges to fix errors of law in the lower court, not fucking wax on about what they think about how shit should work.  Fuck their views about policy and social good.  I do not give a fuck about how they think shit should work.  Just do the fucking work.  Fix errors of law, and other errors when important.  Stop trying to set policy and fucking stop using opinions that usually, badly rationalize your biases.

Now part of the dissent sort of tried to maintain some semblance of roots in the law.  Apparently the issue was not crystal clearly previously articulated, that charter schools are state actors under the same legal requirements of actual state run schools.  If they stuck to that, I would have merely disagreed.  But the idiot judge went off on some crack headed defense of not only the skirt rule, but the kind of ignorant thinking that leads to things like the stupid skirt rule.  That is what I'm against here.  If you can make your case based on the law, fine.  If you have to rely on some pulled out of your or someone else's ass, bullshit argument?  You are trying to bullshit me.  I hate bullshit.  I despise bullshit arguments.  And I grade hard.