Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Thanks Tree9Thanks

Thread: SCOTUS Takes Cert On Trans Students Rights

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,894
    Thanks
    27395

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio

    SCOTUS Takes Cert On Trans Students Rights

    The Supreme Court agreed [October 27, 2016] to tackle transgender rights for the first time, taking a case that will determine whether schools nationwide may force students to use restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates.

    The case, stemming from a Virginia dispute involving a transgender boy, will be heard early next year, either by the current eight-member court or with a new ninth justice chosen at the behest of the winner of the presidential election.

    The justices will hear an appeal from the Gloucester County School Board, which had adopted a rule requiring students to use the restrooms that correspond to their “biological genders.”
    Supreme Court will decide on transgender rights in Virginia school case - LA Times

    The decision should be handed down sometime in the Spring of 2017; it is not impossible that a 9th SCOTUS Justice as yet to be identified could have joined the Court and participated. That is very unlikely, however.

    As it stands, the 8 member court is: Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayer, Kagan and Alito.

    A few thoughts: First, I hate that the culture war over trans people's rights is being fought among our children. I wish that could have been avoided; those made anxious by human sexuality issues are likely to lash out at innocent kids, and this is despicable.

    Second, the issue is not exactly like the same sex marriage question. This is not philosophical; transgenderism is a scientific, medical fact. The science is still in its infancy, but we are able to observe some physical effects when a person has the "syndrome", by examining their DNA at very fundamental levels.

    It is vital, IMO, that the Court get this right on the science. Lawyers and religious leaders resisted other science facts as they came along; everything from the rotation of the earth to the existence of bacteria was once rejected by nonscientists. Transgenderism is a aspect of human sexuality that is almost painfully poised to create anxiety and resistance to learning in most Americans -- including SCOTUS Justices -- because the idea that gender is not fixed at birth (at least, not by observing the baby with the naked eye) is so damaging to the average person's ego and view of herself as a person.

    What does it really mean to be female, if anyone who "chooses" can also be female? Etc.

    The Court could render a very narrow decision, interpreting Title IX to either find support for the Obama Admin's edict that schools must not discriminate against trans students as to bathrooms and other facilities, or not find such support. But Scotus rarely takes cert just to decide narrow issues and avoid the real, underlying question of law.

    Answering such questions is the SCOTUS's function, after all.

    It is almost certain the decision will favor trans rights in some way; the liberals who blessed gay marriage are all still there, and Scalia was the greatest force in opposition.

    (RIP, you crappy Justice.)

    But if the Court decides that "people are free to choose to present as any gender they like" rather than "some science still needs to be done, but transgenderism is an established medical fact", this will almost do more harm than good.

    There might well be people who are posing as transgendered people; humans are endlessly inventive and attention-seeking. But that changes no science.

    Some people -- a small minority -- are born with brains that are "gendered" differently than their other body parts. It is one of several types of gender ambiguity "syndromes" that naturally occur in a few babies out of a thousand, or a hundred thousand.

    Humans are not perfect, even at birth. Transgenderism is akin to being born with a cleft palate; when that baby is old enough, the defect is repairable by surgery and should not blight the person's life...I hope to God we can get to where we need to be, legally.

    Hang on to your hats, folks, The next wave in the culture wars is coming.

    Thanks from cable2

  2. #2
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,442
    Thanks
    329

    From
    Yesod

    Culture Off Biological Distinction

    " Culture Off Biological Distinction "


    * Where Coercion Begins Coaxing Ends *


    Where behavior is consistent with non aggression principles , which other creed is necessary ?

    How should those left react to their own assertion that genome type is related with phenome type which includes dispositions towards a particular demeanor that through imprinting and social interaction contributes to behavior ?

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    45,483
    Thanks
    8542

    I think it will be down to seven at that point.

    Ginsburg has one foot in the grave, I don't see them trying to fill these seats.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,894
    Thanks
    27395

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    I think it will be down to seven at that point.

    Ginsburg has one foot in the grave, I don't see them trying to fill these seats.
    Is she ill? I had not heard that.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    26,949
    Thanks
    7094

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    I think it will be down to seven at that point.

    Ginsburg has one foot in the grave, I don't see them trying to fill these seats.
    You do know the Senate could say after Ginsburg Dies that the court be only 7 justices not 9. (That is the power of the senate)
    Thanks from Madeline

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    45,483
    Thanks
    8542

    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    You do know the Senate could say after Ginsburg Dies that the court be only 7 justices not 9. (That is the power of the senate)
    Yep.

    If I were in the RNC leadership that would be my plan. That would give us a 4-3 majority and since Hillary is unlikely to nominate a conservative I would do it.

  7. #7
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    33,002
    Thanks
    25992

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Is she ill? I had not heard that.
    She has had some health issues but she's fine. To not appoint Garland is deplorable.
    Thanks from Friday13 and cable2

  8. #8
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    33,002
    Thanks
    25992

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Yep.

    If I were in the RNC leadership that would be my plan. That would give us a 4-3 majority and since Hillary is unlikely to nominate a conservative I would do it.
    So you advocate for subverting the Constitution? Good to know. It's already unprecedented that there were zero hearings on Garland.
    Thanks from Friday13 and cable2

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    45,483
    Thanks
    8542

    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    So you advocate for subverting the Constitution? Good to know. It's already unprecedented that there were zero hearings on Garland.
    Really? And show me where in the Constitution it says they must hold hearings for nomination.



    Long Supreme Court vacancies used to be more common | Pew Research Center

  10. #10
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    33,002
    Thanks
    25992

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Really? And show me where in the Constitution it says they must hold hearings for nomination.



    Long Supreme Court vacancies used to be more common | Pew Research Center
    I love how you had to go back to the 1800's to find SCOTUS vacancies that lasted so long.

    There is NO SCOTUS nominee that has been left in limbo for so long in modern times.

    But hey, if Hillary wins, the GOP will probably be SOOL - she won't go for Garland, she will go for someone more liberal.

    And they can't just keep blocking the nomination.
    Thanks from cable2

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS Takes Up Service Dog Case
    By Friday13 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29th June 2016, 09:40 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11th May 2016, 12:27 PM
  3. SCOTUS takes on public prayer case
    By Rasselas in forum Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2nd November 2013, 01:45 PM
  4. SCOTUS guts key part of Voting Rights Act
    By Friday13 in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 3rd July 2013, 04:22 PM
  5. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 20th November 2011, 02:35 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed