The Fifth Circuit has not responded to Southwest’s Sept. 6 request for an order to keep the sanctions on hold. [Update: With no order, the sanctions are back in effect.]
Sigh, I hope the lawyers show up for the training equipped with whoopee cushions, duck callers, kazoos, and recordings of Twisted Sister. All low key, of course, in response to points made by the trainers. In some universe a judge may be able to impose religiously based training on people. In no universe with our First Amendment do those trainers have any right to have their views respected.
Too right. Nothing in the court order saying they have to listen to the religious indoctrination. Reminds me of Anarchy Princess strategically blowing her whistle at Navarros press conference. Her timing was “chefs kiss”
Over at Religious Clause Blog, I saw a discussion to "Teachers Get Religious Exemption from School Policy Barring Disclosure to Parents of Gender Identity Changes" (Mirabelli v. Olson).
Checking it out, the judge is a bit of a "repeat offender."
Mirabelli v Olson is a terrible decision, although I'm a bit confused by the "repeat offender" designation; the judge in Mirabelli v. Olson is Roger T. Benitez, the judge in the Southwest case is Brantley Starr.
I don’t think Joe is saying Benitez had anything to do with the Southwest case; I think he’s just saying that, totally independent of the Southwest case, he’s a “repeat offender.”
Ah, I understand, my bad. Seeing how Benitez has rules on other cases (from Wikipedia, I see a lot of eyebrow raising gun case rulings from him), that makes full sense.
We have entered a Byzantine phase of cognitive and cultural dementia --and, no less, it is spearheaded by the most corrupt, ignorant and rapacious faction of this society: Deplorables.
Southwest should take a page from the tRump playbook and demand a recusal by this judge. Frankly, I don’t know why they are being so passive in a lawsuit that is purely political agenda.
Do a state-of-Alabama action and just ignore the order...and when the contempt-of-court ruling follows, ignore that as well. Brute-force it up the appellate chain, what does SWA have to lose?
Sigh, I hope the lawyers show up for the training equipped with whoopee cushions, duck callers, kazoos, and recordings of Twisted Sister. All low key, of course, in response to points made by the trainers. In some universe a judge may be able to impose religiously based training on people. In no universe with our First Amendment do those trainers have any right to have their views respected.
Too right. Nothing in the court order saying they have to listen to the religious indoctrination. Reminds me of Anarchy Princess strategically blowing her whistle at Navarros press conference. Her timing was “chefs kiss”
Thanks for keeping us updated.
Over at Religious Clause Blog, I saw a discussion to "Teachers Get Religious Exemption from School Policy Barring Disclosure to Parents of Gender Identity Changes" (Mirabelli v. Olson).
Checking it out, the judge is a bit of a "repeat offender."
Thanks. Will do.
Mirabelli v Olson is a terrible decision, although I'm a bit confused by the "repeat offender" designation; the judge in Mirabelli v. Olson is Roger T. Benitez, the judge in the Southwest case is Brantley Starr.
https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2023/09/teachers-get-religious-exemption-from.html
I don’t think Joe is saying Benitez had anything to do with the Southwest case; I think he’s just saying that, totally independent of the Southwest case, he’s a “repeat offender.”
Ah, I understand, my bad. Seeing how Benitez has rules on other cases (from Wikipedia, I see a lot of eyebrow raising gun case rulings from him), that makes full sense.
We have entered a Byzantine phase of cognitive and cultural dementia --and, no less, it is spearheaded by the most corrupt, ignorant and rapacious faction of this society: Deplorables.
Southwest should take a page from the tRump playbook and demand a recusal by this judge. Frankly, I don’t know why they are being so passive in a lawsuit that is purely political agenda.
fedsoc is converting courts they control into ecclesiastical - like affairs. It's bizarre
Do a state-of-Alabama action and just ignore the order...and when the contempt-of-court ruling follows, ignore that as well. Brute-force it up the appellate chain, what does SWA have to lose?