By Michael Pakaluk, The Catholic Thing - I believe firmly that everything important can be said, not in three words, as Wittgenstein maintained, but in 1000 or less. Therefore, I wish in today’s column to explain the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bostock, and what is principally wrong with it... It is important to criticize the Court’s reasoning, because, in a misguided high-mindedness, it holds that any lamenting of the practical consequences of its decision belongs to the realm of policy rather than to what the law says.