Yes, good, thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.I don't think the Constitution mentions anything on the definition of "woman." To the founders it was. . . well. . . self-evident. Don't you think? In fact, the founders didn't even think women were political entities at the time the Constitution was written. It wasn't till the passage of the 19th Amendment that Women were even recognized under federal law.
And the ERA has not been passed yet.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Title IX - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Institutional requirements
Athletic equality requirements were later set by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.[when?] In order to meet the requirements, schools must pass at least one of three tests measuring gender equality among athletics the school offers.[29] These tests consist of proportional numbers of males and females participating, whether or not the school is making an effort to increase the number of the unrepresented sex, if the school has a certain history of one specific sex dominating the numbers of athletes in a given sport, and whether or not the school is showing an effort to expand the program to the other sex.[29]
Let's start one level higher, because it's essential context.
Our Constitution defines a Person (capital P) as someone who's been born. If you've been born, you're a Person in the eyes of the law.
And, our Constitution says, all Persons are required to be treated equally, in the eyes of the law. Mostly "the law" means the government, so one could paraphrase by saying the government can't discriminate against anyone.
But the law is more than that, yes? There is for example equal opportunity in employment, equal housing law, and laws pertaining to business offerings from private and public corporations.
The law though, says it's okay to have a blacks only or whites only PRIVATE club, as long as you advertise it that way and never advertise anything different. What you can NOT do is change the terms of the offer after the fact, so if you make a public offering and then deny someone because they're black or gay, that's illegal.
Our Constitution says that all People who are born have guaranteed political rights. It doesn't matter if they're weird or disgusting, they still have equal political rights and must be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
So, as a Supreme Court Justice, it is incumbent on Ms Ketanji to know exactly what constitutes a political Right
Equal treatment under the law is a guaranteed political right. Equal treatment by private institutions is not.
So in this case, we have a conflict of rights. We have an offer, and we also have offers to all the other women.
The question, legally, boils down to "what exactly does the offer say", and if it says "women's swimming", is there a reasonable expectation that this means woman by birth, or is this not a reasonable expectation.
We'll have the Supreme Court providing the answer, but really, my take is, the swimmers themselves should be the ones to answer. I'm sure there will be no end to the amicus briefs.
