Canines and Supreme Courts in Book Six: Trying to Hold On 2019

Nala Last Night:

So it must be said that with my current schedule, it has been incredibly difficult to give Nala a walk. I leave the house at 7:30 and arrive home between 5 and 6. Play practice starts at 6 and goes until 8. My house is in an area with few, if any, streetlights and the only way to get to a walking path or sidewalk is to walk through the woods in the pitch black night or walk on the highway… in the pitch black night. So, I haven’t been able to give Nala a walk on weekdays recently.

Well, she is 10 months old. She’s discovering herself while still full of that puppy energy. She definitely needs walks. Wife will sometimes help out; but less and less as her homework load gets away from her. Last night she was working on homework the entire time I was home and even for a few hours after I went to sleep.

In an attempt to be a good Dog Father, I played with Nala for the twenty minutes I was home between work and play. Went to play practice. Came home. Played with Nala for an hour. Like… chasing her, throwing the ball, playing tug of war, all of it. But then… I had to take care of some things and unwind as I’m in bed (usually) around 10 or so.

So, I’m trying to calm the puppy down. She isn’t having any of it as she is still running around in circles. So I let her outside. I even stay out there with her. I sit on the steps, she runs around in the dark… hoping that would have the desired affect. I unwind and prepare my mind for bed, she runs around like a crazy person and gets herself tired.

She runs around for about a half hour. Then I bring her in because she’s slowing down. Or so I thought. NOPE. She was just getting bored without having me chase her around the yard. So I’m on the couch, trying to get both of us to a quiet place… harder to do as the internet last night was more “on the fritz” than ever so no Netflix, No Amazon Prime, No Youtube. But while I was doing that… the dog kept whine/yelling at me. Like… loud, high pitched, whine barks directly in my face. When I would go to pet her, in an attempt to calm her, she’d BITE ME! So… no. That isn’t acceptable. NOT OKAY. So I did what my dad did for Nala whenever she got like that… kennel time. If you’re too worked up to not bite, you need to be somewhere that can calm you down. So I put her in the kennel for about twenty minutes to calm her down. I let her out of the kennel before I went to bed. At which point, she seemed okay. She got out of the kennel and slowly walked around the living room. I went to the bedroom and secured my CPAP mask. At which point, the dog bounds into the bedroom, jumps onto the bed, and starts trying to jump on me while I’m in the bed. Not the “make room, I want to sleep next to you” jump on me… the “Daddy play! Play Daddy!” kind of jumping. I just ignored her because I figured “CPAP, Bed, Lights Out” would send the message. It did… eventually.

I’m definitely in that mixed place with her on that kind of thing. Like… I feel really bad. Nala is a great pupper and she should be getting played with, taken for walks, trained… she should be getting the attention she needs. And so I feel bad that she isn’t getting that. On the other hand… most weekdays, I’m lucky to get three hours at home. Usually not even 3 hours. And this week, that is more true than ever. Wednesday, I’m out of the house from 7:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Thursday… same deal! So that will be (a) long day, (b) with very little time at home before bed, (c) and I’ll be exhausted. Sorry, Nala. Daddy’s too busy this week.

Supreme Court Case Before the Court Today:

Some of you may be aware that the Supreme Court is back in session today. Some of you may also be aware that Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are two of the most conservative appointments the court has had in 30 years. But knowing that means that attorneys for (what could be argued as Liberal perspectives) have to get creative.

Today in front of the Supreme Court is the question Can one be fired for being gay or transgender?
This is, interestingly enough, what my law school required us to argue for our 2L project. We all had to prepare convincing, legally sound arguments for both sides of the issue. So, when you take around 200 law students and have them argue both sides of an issue… you tend to hear a lot of different perspectives and a lot of different strategies. After reviewing the strategy that is being used today in court, I’m pleased to say that none of us thought of that. Why is that? Sure, you could say it is because we were law students who were inexperienced and weren’t taking the matter as seriously as we should… but then I have to remind you that members of the Nebraska Supreme Court were our actual graders. So we had to take that shit seriously.

No, I think what we’re seeing is a two fold strategy being tied up as a one. Fold 1: Make the argument as dumbed down and media friendly as possible. Remove legalese, intellectual argument, and nuance. The same idiots who want Trump to stay in office are incapable of appreciating legalese, intellectual argument, and nuance and almost everything has to be won on TV these days anymore anyway. Fold 2: The argument has to be free of any political or nuanced social suggestions. It must be predicated strictly on the preexisting language of laws already established with no expansion of those ideas in any way. We’re no longer dealing with a court that thinks “If a then b, if b then c; so if a then c” we’re dealing with a court that says “If a then b. If b then c. A must never be followed by C.”

So… what is the strategy? I’ll try to summarize based on what I’ve seen and heard in interviews.

The law currently states that a person cannot be fired based on their sex, which in this case exclusively means gender. The law dictates that a person who does not conform to stereotypical standards for that gender cannot be terminated for not conforming. IE: If a woman is not “pretty enough” or “feminine enough”, she cannot be fired for that. (In states that aren’t “Right to Work States which will create another wrinkle and nightmare). So, by the Constitution… if you are a woman and you don’t wear makeup, you can’t be fired from your job because of that.

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity relate to gender exclusively in this manner.

What is a homosexual? A gay man is someone who is sexually attracted to men. A gay woman is someone who is sexually attracted to women. IT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE if the person attracted to men was a woman… it is only an issue that the person attracted to men is a man. IT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE if the person attracted to women was a man… it is only an issue that the person attracted to men is a woman. Thus, this falls squarely into an argument about being terminated for gender.

What is a Transgender Person? A person that was assigned the gender of “MAN” at birth but is in fact a woman. Or a person that was assigned the gender of “WOMAN” at birth but is in fact a man. If the gender they were assigned with at birth was woman and they are in fact a woman.... or the gender they were assigned with at birth was man and they are in fact a man… this wouldn’t be before the Supreme Court at all. So it exclusively ties with Gender and the rules already set in place that an individual of that gender need not fit certain standards to be protected from termination.

Honestly… I think those are good arguments.
I also, quite honestly, don’t believe they will be victorious.
I truly believe that the Supreme Court will come out saying Homosexuals and Transgender individuals may be terminated based on their sexual orientation and gender status.

Why do I believe that?

A number of reasons. But possibly the most important?
When the Iowa Supreme Court got re-structured based on Conservative Backlash (GOP money flooded a Supreme Court Retention ballot, succeeding in getting liberal judges removed and replaced with conservative judges) a case with even less controversy came before them.
Could a woman be terminated simply because her boss found her attractive?
The Iowa Supreme Court held that it was acceptable for the employer to terminate his employee when the employer found the employee to be “so attractive as to threaten his fidelity to his wife.”

So… yeah. That’s where Iowa is, right now. Ladies, if you’re hideous and terrible looking; you can keep your job, if you can get hired. But if you’re attractive and your boss wants you sexually, he can fire you. ANYONE ELSE SEEING SEXUAL HARASSMENT RED FLAGS ALL AROUND?!

So yeah. That’s why I think the case will go the way I think it will. Conservatives in Iowa pretty much already said, “We don’t care about the Gender Perspective in the Constitution. That was written in per the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and we prefer the original Constitution’s framework.” Bah!