Independent Agencies & Transgender Sports

The bigger questions surrounding the Court's biggest decision

We dropped two episodes this week. First was on Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook and the Court’s elimination of “independent agencies” (with an unprincipled but expected exception for the Federal Reserve):

And just today we dropped one of our best episodes yet on the transgender sports case:

The reason these episodes go well together is that we don’t just talk about legal doctrine. Yes, we cover the text, history, etc., of the Constitution relating to the removal power, and we talk about Title IX, Bostock, and the Equal Protection Clause for our analysis of the transgender cases.

But we also ask much bigger questions. What was the Wilsonian, bureau-kratos vision of government, and how did that square with demos-kratos and with the Constitution? Was the Court’s decision in Slaughter a blow to the Wilsonian vision? And in the transgender sports episode, we ask: What language should the opinions have used—gendered or neutral? How does the Left manipulate language to manipulate thought? Is there a truth of the matter—and does that matter? Are we allowed to believe in the female and male binary, and to seek to achieve female and male physical excellence through sports segregated by biological sex?

These are deeply philosophical, and not merely legal, questions. We try to tackle them on the Rationally BASED podcast.

As always: Please consider a paid subscription if you like our work. We don’t pay ourselves anything. It’s all to help get the message out.