Not only was Chase Strangio arguing, but trans plaintiffs were in the courtroom, as were many other trans people: lawyers, journalists, observers. It matters.
Thank you for your coverage, Chris. I pointed to your Monday post when people were asking for info to prep for Wednesday, and second you here: trans participation in the process is important.
I don't expect it to change the outcome, but I do consider it important.
Chris, thank you for not merely covering that trans journalists, lawyers, and other professionals were at the Supreme Court today but also, and more importantly, placing their writing and work directly in front of your audience. What you wrote here might appear simple and brief, but it is one of the best instances I've seen recently of someone using their space to inform, humanize, *and* demonstrate the power of people who will be most affected by the outcome of an event. I appreciate this piece so much.
I suspect I'm not alone in trying to figure out how much I trust Amy Coney Barrett when the case isn't overturning Roe v Wade, but I am sympathetic that she might not KNOW the history of the terms cross-dresser and transvestite, both of which were used to describe what we now call transgender folk. Looking for a historical pattern of de jure discrimination against transgender folk going back more than a decade or two takes more than just googling for "laws against transgender".
Now that Amy Coney Barrett KNOWS, of course, I expect her to CARE.
It's interesting. As a trans person, I had precisely the opposite reaction. While the google results pages may presently be cluttered by attention to recent laws, 10 years ago you could indeed spend 30 seconds googling "laws against transgender" and get quite a lot of history.
More importantly, the woman has a frickin' staff to help her. If she wanted to ask an intelligent question at oral argument, preparation time for the case included more than enough time for her staff to find out about anti-cross dressing laws.
I don't actually expect her to care about trans people -- I don't think she does and I don't think she ever will -- but I do expect her to care about her job, and this woeful and willful ignorance on a topic that she herself believes is important to the work she is currently doing at the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court!) tells me that she not only doesn't care about trans people, she doesn't even care about doing her job. Like not even enough to tell one of her 3 clerks, "Hey, do you think this week you could find out whether there are any examples of de jure discrimination against trans people in US history? Thanks."
For the record, I just spoke those words aloud and they don't even take 30 seconds to say.
You are so right, but to my mind it is not surprising that the briefs for the United States left that out. Keep in mind that the US did not raise parental due process rights, and the Court did not accept the intervenors' parental due process rights question. DOJ is a rather cautious litigator. They're going to stay on solid ground as much as possible. I think Coney Barrett was trying to shift the argument into Dobbs territory. Alito made it very obvious that he was going to do that. It's generally in the cases involving the constitutional principle of "due process of law" that we see discussions of state "evolution." Dobbs is the graveyard of substantive due process, such as the right to privacy or the right to gender autonomy. Along with that comes requirements of proving that the protection sought is "deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition." With textualists and originalists continually moving the goal posts, they can easily argue that the right of children to change sex/gender is not so rooted. So I think keeping away from that minefield was the right decision for the US. I believe that's why Prelogar didn't answer the question, and Chase did answer it. That's also what all the questions about trans people in sports were trying to accomplish, but we can discuss that another time.
We're in virtual lockstep. I don't have any significant criticisms of Prelogar or Strangio. I think their strategic choices were sound, to the extent that I'm even qualified to judge.
I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about my most recent post on Pervert Justice.
I'm agreeing on both of your comments in this thread, but this one is especially poignant. Prelogar and Strangio were just asking the Supremes to send the case back to the appeals court for heightened scrutiny, and with the Roberts court, shorter has got to be better, because you don't want to give Alito (especially) a chance to start blathering about the UK and Sweden or some damn thing.
But if they had included a description of historical de jure discrimination against trans people, that could have been begging for a discussion that wasn't necessary for the Supremes to send the case back.
Sometimes I suspect - and this may be a dated reference :) - that Barrett is like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football. She gets our hopes up that she's going to be reasonable and do the right thing, or at least halfway, and then she ends up joining with the other fascists. I would like nothing more than for her to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath either.
I think Amy Coney Barrett is trying to be an unbiased sincere justice but she is up against dt's bought and paid for judges so as much as she wants to be honest and thorough in these cases, the bullies keep overwhelming her decisions. There's got to be a way to change the court in its entirety before honest and sincere unbiased decisions can be rendered.
1. I somewhat suspect that Amy Coney Barrett went to the Supremes to overturn Roe v. Wade, and now that mission is accomplished, she might not be AS doctrinaire and dogmatic about other right-wing priorities. I don't think she was trying to be unbiased and sincere for Dobbs, but when Texas was defending their vagueness on abortion, she was the only justice nominated by a Republican who seemed to understand or care that women can be sickened and die during a miscarriage.
She is also the only justice appointed by a Republican who has a uterus, of course ...
Why do people like the “conservatives”, so hate queer folk? I am 75 and a widower and my only child and his wife and boy and girl now live with me since Trump 1.0. Those 75 years have seen many things and have been around the world thanks to my military upbringing and thanks to Nixon. As a Green Beret, an anthropologist and engineer I have worked with gays and lesbians and never even heard of a trans. I have no problem with these folk, but I do have a problem with extremists!
I'm 62 - white, cis male - and I've had trans friends and colleagues for over half my life (and I was aware of trans folk for about a decade prior to that). I have to constantly remind myself that most people don't know any trans people, even though they've almost certainly met several...
Strangio and Preloger set a high bar in their performances yesterday. Unparalleled advocacy. Thanks for pointing it out. And Asks thanks for giving us a sense of the people in the courtroom.
Thank you for your coverage and pointing to others who are also covering this.
I'm trans as well so, this is quite important for me, but even cis people should realize this is important and could impact their own rights if this goes the wrong way.
To be clear, this attitude about trans lawyers is something I confront every day. It reminded me of the quote by Johnson, which I used to rely on heavily when people doubted my qualifications.
Chase made strong arguments, had a detailed knowledge of the factual record, held his own, and did not take the appealing but poisoned bait from the conservative justices. A great first for trans people. Also, few people are talking about the curious incident of the Gorsuch in the night. I think it portends potential surprises. Can't wait to read your further analysis.
Thank you for covering the case and explaining the importance (and courage) of so many of the observers (and participants).
It's so sad that so many so-called "conservatives" (who almost without exception also call themselves "christians") are so terrified of anyone "different" from their very narrow world view. What causes these bigots to be so afraid of letting people live their lives?
I have many friends and a few family members in the LGBTQ community, and without exception, they are kind, productive members of society that threaten no one.
Chris, your piece captures the gravity and humanity of this pivotal moment with clarity and depth. The presence of trans plaintiffs, advocates, and journalists in the courtroom highlights the undeniable importance of visibility in a case with such far-reaching implications.
Chase Strangio’s advocacy and the courage of individuals like L.W. make clear that this is not just a legal debate but a deeply personal battle for dignity and rights. Thank you for bringing this critical story to light and centering the voices that need to be heard.
We are never allowed to speak for ourselves in this country, our horrible representation is always chosen for us by cis people, and I am extremely proud of Chase and Chelsea and all of the trans people with backbone who showed up to defend people like me on the national stage. We are not going back! 🏳️⚧️
The Repug Christofascist ghouls on the bench came off as extremely transparently dishonest, but the rest of the world is likely just not informed enough to be able to tell they're lying. Matt Walsh & Marjorie Taylor Greene reminded everyone in clear language toward what end the effort advanced in the decision is working: «eradication of transgender ideology from the face of the Earth», which will, of course, require the elimination at minimum by imprisonment of all transgender people who have undergone sufficient medical treatment to run afoul of the neo-Francoist Christofascist dominionist bigots' bigotries & hatreds by dint of their bodily forms.
Thank you for your coverage, Chris. I pointed to your Monday post when people were asking for info to prep for Wednesday, and second you here: trans participation in the process is important.
I don't expect it to change the outcome, but I do consider it important.
Chris, thank you for not merely covering that trans journalists, lawyers, and other professionals were at the Supreme Court today but also, and more importantly, placing their writing and work directly in front of your audience. What you wrote here might appear simple and brief, but it is one of the best instances I've seen recently of someone using their space to inform, humanize, *and* demonstrate the power of people who will be most affected by the outcome of an event. I appreciate this piece so much.
I suspect I'm not alone in trying to figure out how much I trust Amy Coney Barrett when the case isn't overturning Roe v Wade, but I am sympathetic that she might not KNOW the history of the terms cross-dresser and transvestite, both of which were used to describe what we now call transgender folk. Looking for a historical pattern of de jure discrimination against transgender folk going back more than a decade or two takes more than just googling for "laws against transgender".
Now that Amy Coney Barrett KNOWS, of course, I expect her to CARE.
It's interesting. As a trans person, I had precisely the opposite reaction. While the google results pages may presently be cluttered by attention to recent laws, 10 years ago you could indeed spend 30 seconds googling "laws against transgender" and get quite a lot of history.
More importantly, the woman has a frickin' staff to help her. If she wanted to ask an intelligent question at oral argument, preparation time for the case included more than enough time for her staff to find out about anti-cross dressing laws.
I don't actually expect her to care about trans people -- I don't think she does and I don't think she ever will -- but I do expect her to care about her job, and this woeful and willful ignorance on a topic that she herself believes is important to the work she is currently doing at the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court!) tells me that she not only doesn't care about trans people, she doesn't even care about doing her job. Like not even enough to tell one of her 3 clerks, "Hey, do you think this week you could find out whether there are any examples of de jure discrimination against trans people in US history? Thanks."
For the record, I just spoke those words aloud and they don't even take 30 seconds to say.
You are so right, but to my mind it is not surprising that the briefs for the United States left that out. Keep in mind that the US did not raise parental due process rights, and the Court did not accept the intervenors' parental due process rights question. DOJ is a rather cautious litigator. They're going to stay on solid ground as much as possible. I think Coney Barrett was trying to shift the argument into Dobbs territory. Alito made it very obvious that he was going to do that. It's generally in the cases involving the constitutional principle of "due process of law" that we see discussions of state "evolution." Dobbs is the graveyard of substantive due process, such as the right to privacy or the right to gender autonomy. Along with that comes requirements of proving that the protection sought is "deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition." With textualists and originalists continually moving the goal posts, they can easily argue that the right of children to change sex/gender is not so rooted. So I think keeping away from that minefield was the right decision for the US. I believe that's why Prelogar didn't answer the question, and Chase did answer it. That's also what all the questions about trans people in sports were trying to accomplish, but we can discuss that another time.
We're in virtual lockstep. I don't have any significant criticisms of Prelogar or Strangio. I think their strategic choices were sound, to the extent that I'm even qualified to judge.
I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about my most recent post on Pervert Justice.
I'm agreeing on both of your comments in this thread, but this one is especially poignant. Prelogar and Strangio were just asking the Supremes to send the case back to the appeals court for heightened scrutiny, and with the Roberts court, shorter has got to be better, because you don't want to give Alito (especially) a chance to start blathering about the UK and Sweden or some damn thing.
But if they had included a description of historical de jure discrimination against trans people, that could have been begging for a discussion that wasn't necessary for the Supremes to send the case back.
Sometimes I suspect - and this may be a dated reference :) - that Barrett is like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football. She gets our hopes up that she's going to be reasonable and do the right thing, or at least halfway, and then she ends up joining with the other fascists. I would like nothing more than for her to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath either.
In other words, she's the SCOTUS version of Susan Collins. :-\
I think Amy Coney Barrett is trying to be an unbiased sincere justice but she is up against dt's bought and paid for judges so as much as she wants to be honest and thorough in these cases, the bullies keep overwhelming her decisions. There's got to be a way to change the court in its entirety before honest and sincere unbiased decisions can be rendered.
1. I somewhat suspect that Amy Coney Barrett went to the Supremes to overturn Roe v. Wade, and now that mission is accomplished, she might not be AS doctrinaire and dogmatic about other right-wing priorities. I don't think she was trying to be unbiased and sincere for Dobbs, but when Texas was defending their vagueness on abortion, she was the only justice nominated by a Republican who seemed to understand or care that women can be sickened and die during a miscarriage.
She is also the only justice appointed by a Republican who has a uterus, of course ...
Why do people like the “conservatives”, so hate queer folk? I am 75 and a widower and my only child and his wife and boy and girl now live with me since Trump 1.0. Those 75 years have seen many things and have been around the world thanks to my military upbringing and thanks to Nixon. As a Green Beret, an anthropologist and engineer I have worked with gays and lesbians and never even heard of a trans. I have no problem with these folk, but I do have a problem with extremists!
I'm 62 - white, cis male - and I've had trans friends and colleagues for over half my life (and I was aware of trans folk for about a decade prior to that). I have to constantly remind myself that most people don't know any trans people, even though they've almost certainly met several...
I have a transgender relative. Your coverage was important to me. We are so proud of Chase for arguing so well.
Strangio and Preloger set a high bar in their performances yesterday. Unparalleled advocacy. Thanks for pointing it out. And Asks thanks for giving us a sense of the people in the courtroom.
Thank you for your coverage and pointing to others who are also covering this.
I'm trans as well so, this is quite important for me, but even cis people should realize this is important and could impact their own rights if this goes the wrong way.
It’s 2024—why should anyone breathing be astonished at the quality and quantity of trans lawyers?
Sadly, at the Supreme Court, it’s more often 1924 … if not 1824.
“Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
― Samuel Johnson
To be clear, this attitude about trans lawyers is something I confront every day. It reminded me of the quote by Johnson, which I used to rely on heavily when people doubted my qualifications.
Chase made strong arguments, had a detailed knowledge of the factual record, held his own, and did not take the appealing but poisoned bait from the conservative justices. A great first for trans people. Also, few people are talking about the curious incident of the Gorsuch in the night. I think it portends potential surprises. Can't wait to read your further analysis.
Thank you for covering the case and explaining the importance (and courage) of so many of the observers (and participants).
It's so sad that so many so-called "conservatives" (who almost without exception also call themselves "christians") are so terrified of anyone "different" from their very narrow world view. What causes these bigots to be so afraid of letting people live their lives?
I have many friends and a few family members in the LGBTQ community, and without exception, they are kind, productive members of society that threaten no one.
Chris, your piece captures the gravity and humanity of this pivotal moment with clarity and depth. The presence of trans plaintiffs, advocates, and journalists in the courtroom highlights the undeniable importance of visibility in a case with such far-reaching implications.
Chase Strangio’s advocacy and the courage of individuals like L.W. make clear that this is not just a legal debate but a deeply personal battle for dignity and rights. Thank you for bringing this critical story to light and centering the voices that need to be heard.
We are never allowed to speak for ourselves in this country, our horrible representation is always chosen for us by cis people, and I am extremely proud of Chase and Chelsea and all of the trans people with backbone who showed up to defend people like me on the national stage. We are not going back! 🏳️⚧️
The Repug Christofascist ghouls on the bench came off as extremely transparently dishonest, but the rest of the world is likely just not informed enough to be able to tell they're lying. Matt Walsh & Marjorie Taylor Greene reminded everyone in clear language toward what end the effort advanced in the decision is working: «eradication of transgender ideology from the face of the Earth», which will, of course, require the elimination at minimum by imprisonment of all transgender people who have undergone sufficient medical treatment to run afoul of the neo-Francoist Christofascist dominionist bigots' bigotries & hatreds by dint of their bodily forms.
"Strangio talked with Barrett talked about"
Second "talked" shouldn't be there (you know I have to catch something)