I’m asking this as a legal bystander, meaning I read about legal issues but am not a lawyer. Im seeking to understand how this case might correlate to others. I’m thinking of the finding of animus by Federal Judge Hinkle in Doe v. Ladapo in Florida this week, where he struck down a ban on gender affirming care as unconstitutional in part because of animus to transgender people on the part of the lawmakers who wrote the bill. (I realize I’m oversimplifying here.) Given that Judge O’Connor here dismisses the idea that transgender people exist, is this also an example of animus from a legal standpoint?
Call him out on strikes for blowing off case or controversy grounds or intellectual dishonesty in not citing Genesis as controlling authority. Any judge who believes that there is a higher law should find a home in the Trappist order.
I will never understand why conservatives think their most important legal battle is fighting for the legal "right" to be discriminatory and hateful to any class of humans. What even is the platform? "We're protecting your right to be just as awful humans as we are?" Really? I'll bet their religious leaders put them up to this...
This opinion clearly demonstrates where the law, as interpreted by judges, is contrary to scientific fact. Sex, which is described by physicians who make a cursory external examination of one's external genitalia at birth, "proclaims" one to be either male or female and by no other means, unless there is some reason, based, again, on that one visual examination, to proclaim otherwise. Many factors come into play in scientifically determining the sex of a newborn. Chromosomes, the appearance of the genitalia and whether there is an anomaly present, testosterone and estrogen levels, brain structure and development as male or female, etc.
To omit by intention or otherwise these facts, the legal system creates two different worlds. One where people assume a visual inspection is accurate and determinative and where the scientific method speaks as opposed to a more objective method. We have created laws that are blind to reality.
The Supreme Court needs to settle these questions regarding trans care and single sex spaces, we live in a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS world, time to understand where we stand.
Watch them reverse course if Trump wins though - "states have no right to obstruct the democratically-elected President's actions per the Supremacy Clause".
You can practically read the bigoted sneer in his words. It's only matched by his breathless disdain for the law.
How can you stand to read through...filth like this? You have a strong stomach.
I’m asking this as a legal bystander, meaning I read about legal issues but am not a lawyer. Im seeking to understand how this case might correlate to others. I’m thinking of the finding of animus by Federal Judge Hinkle in Doe v. Ladapo in Florida this week, where he struck down a ban on gender affirming care as unconstitutional in part because of animus to transgender people on the part of the lawmakers who wrote the bill. (I realize I’m oversimplifying here.) Given that Judge O’Connor here dismisses the idea that transgender people exist, is this also an example of animus from a legal standpoint?
Call him out on strikes for blowing off case or controversy grounds or intellectual dishonesty in not citing Genesis as controlling authority. Any judge who believes that there is a higher law should find a home in the Trappist order.
I will never understand why conservatives think their most important legal battle is fighting for the legal "right" to be discriminatory and hateful to any class of humans. What even is the platform? "We're protecting your right to be just as awful humans as we are?" Really? I'll bet their religious leaders put them up to this...
I used to think that my position in the federal judiciary was a point of pride. Not so much anymore.
Sigh. This guy is only 59?
Is Reed O'Connor a character in Lewis Carroll's imagination or a future justice of the Supreme Court?
This opinion clearly demonstrates where the law, as interpreted by judges, is contrary to scientific fact. Sex, which is described by physicians who make a cursory external examination of one's external genitalia at birth, "proclaims" one to be either male or female and by no other means, unless there is some reason, based, again, on that one visual examination, to proclaim otherwise. Many factors come into play in scientifically determining the sex of a newborn. Chromosomes, the appearance of the genitalia and whether there is an anomaly present, testosterone and estrogen levels, brain structure and development as male or female, etc.
To omit by intention or otherwise these facts, the legal system creates two different worlds. One where people assume a visual inspection is accurate and determinative and where the scientific method speaks as opposed to a more objective method. We have created laws that are blind to reality.
I am reminded of a toddler, stamping his feet in defiance, when told that his bedtime might change at some point in the future...
The Supreme Court needs to settle these questions regarding trans care and single sex spaces, we live in a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS world, time to understand where we stand.
Watch them reverse course if Trump wins though - "states have no right to obstruct the democratically-elected President's actions per the Supremacy Clause".