And now for something from someone I'd not ordinarily cite (and who probably wouldn't like this blog) . . .

Phyllis Schlafly has a fascinating piece reflecting on (among other things) gender proportionality in women's sports:

Gender quotas are created by the invention of an informal regulation called the "proportionality test," which means that the male-to-female ratio on competitive sports teams must equal the male-to-female ratio of college enrollment. About 56 percent of college students today are women, yet only a fraction seek to compete in intercollegiate sports.

The senseless numbers game called proportionality has resulted in the elimination of hundreds of male teams: 171 colleges dropped wresting, 37 colleges dropped football, 27 dropped outdoor track, 25 dropped swimming and 10 abolished ice hockey.

The abolition of wrestling teams proves that Title IX enforcement has nothing to do with equalizing funding or scholarships, because wrestling is one of the cheapest of all competitive sports. Eliminating wrestling does nothing for women; it simply feeds the anti-masculine animus of feminists.

Bush had the chance to remedy this nonsense when he appointed a commission to study the problem. But he put feminists on the commission, and then chickened out because the commission's report was not unanimous and allowed the proportionality rule to remain.

Feminists assert that proportionality is only one part of a three-prong test. But proportionality is the only prong that matters because college attorneys warn that the bean-counting approach is the only safe way to protect universities from lawsuits.

It is an incontrovertible fact that men are more interested in competitive sports than women, and it is typical for colleges to have difficulty finding women to meet their quota targets. Despite the claim that Title IX helps women athletes, the numbers game has actually caused the elimination of traditional girls' teams such as gymnastics (100 teams have been abolished) in favor of large-squad sports such as rowing or horseback riding.

In ridiculing the senselessness of gender quotas, the University of Kansas college newspaper published this ironic comment. "College sports for women should be compulsory. Granted, many women may insist they don't want to play sports, but after generations of patriarchal oppression, it isn't realistic to think women really know what they want. The goal of perfectly equal gender ratios is more important than what anybody 'wants.'"

Because they don't know what they want?

What should men be made to do? Stop wrestling because women don't like to wrestle? I don't know how accurate Schlafly's allegations are, but if they're even half right, the situation is outrageous.

But two wrongs do not make a right.

And in my opinion, what's more wrong than misguided feminism is Ms. Schlafly's idea (shared by many others) that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction:

Don't let anybody tell you that Congress can't tell the federal courts what cases they can and cannot hear.

Article III, Section 2 states: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Thus, Congress can make "exceptions" to the types of cases the Supreme Court can decide.

Article III, Section 1 states: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article I, Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have power ... to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."

Thus, all federal courts except the Supreme Court were created by Congress. Congress defined their powers and prescribed what kinds of cases they can hear, and so Congress can redefine, re-prescribe, uncreate, limit, regulate and even abolish those federal courts.

The advocates of these bills (called "The Constitution Restoration Act") want to start by removing the right of the courts to review cases involving certain religious issues, such as the display of the Ten Commandments, or pledge of allegiance cases. Here's the partial text of one such statute:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.

Even if my concerns about the statutes proposed are unfounded, once the precedent is there, what's to stop other limitations on judicial review? Why not stop all criminal appeals in death penalty cases, for example? Or tax cases?

For now, I guess we should be more worried about blasphemy laws. (Via InstaPundit, who has another blasphemy-related link.) Blasphemy laws are becoming politically correct.

I guess if they pass blasphemy laws again, we shouldn't expect much help from "The Constitution Restoration Act." (I'm wondering whether a better name might be "The Constitution Deconstruction Act.")

MORE: Voluntary praying is one thing, but I mentioned "religious compulsion" because the First Amendment guarantees that there be no compulsion in matters of religion. Suppose a public school principal decided that in his view, children should be forced to recite the Apostles' Creed or the Shahada? There are a number of people who believe that compelling others to believe what they believe is not only an expression of their religion, but a religious obligation. The idea that a parent would be unable to stop such state action is simply outrageous. To the extent the "Constitutional Restoration Act" blocks parents from suing in such cases, it violates freedom of religion.