Update: The appeals court responded Friday to questions about its unusual order allowing Indiana's law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors to go into effect.
'Rule of law' means something different to Republicans from what it does to the rest of us, and that will quickly become clear on 1.20.25 to everyone who's not paying attention now, if something doesn't change the trajectory of this election.
'Rights' mean something very different to them too, and generally refer only to their 'right' to practice their faith in a manner consistent with Christian Nationalism. Anything else is 'sin' and there is no right to sin.
Too many people think this is hyperbole and that it couldn't happen in America, but that is the exact course we are on until something changes.
Andra Watkins writes a substack dissecting Project 2025, and because she had the misfortune to grow up in a Christian Nationalist church, she understands what they mean by their language. Here's a link to a really good piece she wrote:
I'm trying to imagine judges, so indifferent to the law, so lacking in self-respect, to do something like this, and I can't.
This is the fault of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has unleashed this demon, by demonstrating that the law doesn't matter. precedence doesn't matter, justice doesn't matter, rights don't matter, only their personal power matters.
Update 3/1/24
Very interesting response in the courts. I wonder if some folks read your post? Judge Jackson-Akiwumi did record a dissent
Yowk. Clearly at least two judges don't think trans folks are human. Though they might uphold a ban on animal cruelty of course.
Most of those poor victims of gender-affirming hormone therapy are at least 16: that's Planned Parenthood's lower limit, and the NIH's, and few if any go below 12. Similarly, puberty blockers are rarely used for really young children. Clearly most know what they are asking for.
But why listen to what kids are telling you? And why not just bag normal judicial procedure in a "just" cause? Some of those kids are going to be voting soon. Along with their friends.
Although it is more accurate to say cruelty is beside the point. This comes up a lot, and the point is their religious beliefs. If the rest of us find it cruel, so be it.
Every time I think we've hit peak Anything Goes from the reactionary wing of the judiciary, they find some way to escalate. If we weren't currently watching the Roberts Court gradually fail to keep the Alito Court from bursting through its skin, I'd be asking if there was a mechanism for SCOTUS intervention, but given the decision on Wednesday I don't think the institutionally-minded members of the high court have the capacity to take action, whether or not there's action for them to take.
It ought to be immediately appealed to the USSCt - stay of a preliminary injunction? What's the difference from it being dissolved? There's no change in the law or facts, it's ultra vires, arbitrary governmental action. If the USSCt accepts the application they ought to restore the injunction on an order to show cause and remand procedendo
I'm familiar with the sentiment but this is a procedural due process matter. Ordinarily the dissolution of an injunction is immediately appealable. If a statute is being facially challenged what has changed to give the intermediate appellate court cause to stay an injunction? I never heard of such a thing. If it was a final decision the stay of judgment would be automatic; if it's interlocutory then the stay has to be applied for. Unless I'm missing something it doesn't make any sense. The worst that could happen is the USSCt would say then hurry up and decide the case and/or allow the injunction to stand until you do. Who is being injured by the injunction?
I'm sorry. I'm going to need to slow down. I'm getting sent too many emails to do my work. I enough the articles but I can't read them all in emails so I'm going to have to either unsubscribe or set my options differently so I don't get as many. Thanks.
'Rule of law' means something different to Republicans from what it does to the rest of us, and that will quickly become clear on 1.20.25 to everyone who's not paying attention now, if something doesn't change the trajectory of this election.
'Rights' mean something very different to them too, and generally refer only to their 'right' to practice their faith in a manner consistent with Christian Nationalism. Anything else is 'sin' and there is no right to sin.
Too many people think this is hyperbole and that it couldn't happen in America, but that is the exact course we are on until something changes.
There is a right to sin, it was given to us by the god they claim to live under. It is called free will.
Andra Watkins writes a substack dissecting Project 2025, and because she had the misfortune to grow up in a Christian Nationalist church, she understands what they mean by their language. Here's a link to a really good piece she wrote:
https://substack.com/@andrawatkins/note/c-50689942?r=l0fb9
I'm trying to imagine judges, so indifferent to the law, so lacking in self-respect, to do something like this, and I can't.
This is the fault of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has unleashed this demon, by demonstrating that the law doesn't matter. precedence doesn't matter, justice doesn't matter, rights don't matter, only their personal power matters.
Update 3/1/24
Very interesting response in the courts. I wonder if some folks read your post? Judge Jackson-Akiwumi did record a dissent
Court doc
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca7.49470/gov.uscourts.ca7.49470.127.0.pdf
[I was working on the update in here now as you updated this. Very interesting, though not all good.]
Yowk. Clearly at least two judges don't think trans folks are human. Though they might uphold a ban on animal cruelty of course.
Most of those poor victims of gender-affirming hormone therapy are at least 16: that's Planned Parenthood's lower limit, and the NIH's, and few if any go below 12. Similarly, puberty blockers are rarely used for really young children. Clearly most know what they are asking for.
But why listen to what kids are telling you? And why not just bag normal judicial procedure in a "just" cause? Some of those kids are going to be voting soon. Along with their friends.
Judicial patriarchy moves into place.
Eh. They'd only uphold an animal cruelty ban if it was premised on Vodou believers secretly performing animal sacrifices.
If Republicans win this election, these kids might -not- be voting soon. Don't believe for a minute there won't be voting and election 'reforms'.
some of them may be voting by November
ignored ignored (minor issue in the article)
Yet again, and it constantly bears repeating: Cruelty. is. the. point.
Although it is more accurate to say cruelty is beside the point. This comes up a lot, and the point is their religious beliefs. If the rest of us find it cruel, so be it.
I hope the Chief Judge of the circuit is ripping the two majority judges new holes for botching procedure.
Every time I think we've hit peak Anything Goes from the reactionary wing of the judiciary, they find some way to escalate. If we weren't currently watching the Roberts Court gradually fail to keep the Alito Court from bursting through its skin, I'd be asking if there was a mechanism for SCOTUS intervention, but given the decision on Wednesday I don't think the institutionally-minded members of the high court have the capacity to take action, whether or not there's action for them to take.
It’s time the LGBTQ rise up. They once had a very strong presence on the political scene—time to organize again.
It ought to be immediately appealed to the USSCt - stay of a preliminary injunction? What's the difference from it being dissolved? There's no change in the law or facts, it's ultra vires, arbitrary governmental action. If the USSCt accepts the application they ought to restore the injunction on an order to show cause and remand procedendo
I have less than zero faith in the SC to make any wise or legal decisions.
I'm familiar with the sentiment but this is a procedural due process matter. Ordinarily the dissolution of an injunction is immediately appealable. If a statute is being facially challenged what has changed to give the intermediate appellate court cause to stay an injunction? I never heard of such a thing. If it was a final decision the stay of judgment would be automatic; if it's interlocutory then the stay has to be applied for. Unless I'm missing something it doesn't make any sense. The worst that could happen is the USSCt would say then hurry up and decide the case and/or allow the injunction to stand until you do. Who is being injured by the injunction?
I'm sorry. I'm going to need to slow down. I'm getting sent too many emails to do my work. I enough the articles but I can't read them all in emails so I'm going to have to either unsubscribe or set my options differently so I don't get as many. Thanks.