original 3 judge panel rules for plaintiff. court denies rehearing en banc yesterday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743249)

trump appointee vandyke (oklahoma state --> harvard law)

starts his dissent as follows, talking about swinging dicks, "woke" regulators, and complicit judges:

1

Olympus Spa, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., No. 23-4031

VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa. Their female employees and female clients don’t want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit.

You may think that swinging dicks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion. You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa—some as young as thirteen—to be visually assaulted by the real thing.

Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls. Yet if harmful and unfortunate consequences were all this case was about, we’d have to shrug and say: “That’s what comes with living in a democracy.” Unless the Constitution is implicated, we get what we voted for “good and hard.”1

1 H.L. MENCKEN, A LITTLE BOOK IN C MAJOR 19 (John Lane Co., 1916)

(“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and

deserve to get it good and hard.”).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743258)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/29/23-4031.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743259)

Olympus Spa, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., No. 23-4031

McKEOWN, Senior Circuit Judge, joined by MURGUIA, Chief Judge,

HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, GRABER, FLETCHER, PAEZ, BERZON,

CLIFTON, BYBEE, and HURWITZ, Senior Circuit Judges, WARDLAW,

GOULD, RAWLINSON, M. SMITH, CHRISTEN, NGUYEN, FRIEDLAND,

MILLER, KOH, SUNG, SANCHEZ, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, DESAI,

JOHNSTONE, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, respecting the denial of rehearing

en banc:

The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743299)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743396)

I actually don't think this at all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743641)

Regarding the dissenting opinion of Judge VanDyke: We are better than this. [that's the full concurrence]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845571&forum_id=2)#49743661)