Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” - JOHN STUART MILL

I've spent today reading all of the SCOTUS opinions on BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA.

I've also seen a lot of comments on social media about the landmark decision today ... but I've not yet spotted a single one that addresses the most remarkable thing in the ruling - which is (for me, a non-lawyer) the most remarkable thing about any landmark ruling by the Court in the few years I've been reading these decisions.

I can't be the only one to have read these three opinions and been stunned by the thing that stunned me.

Does anyone out there know what I'm talking about?!

If something struck you about the ruling, tell me in the comments so I know I'm not going crazy. If you didn't spot it as you were reading, just keep reading: one of the opinions does a pretty good job of pointing you toward it.

The integrity of the judicial branch depends NOT on WHAT it concludes, or whether what it concludes suits our view of society, but on WHY and HOW it finds what it finds.

It's the WHY and the HOW that holds this whole bang shoot together. It's in the why and the how that our rights live and our civilization - let alone our Constitution - survive.