Supreme Court Will Rule On Gender-Affirming Care For Minors
Supreme Court Will Rule On Gender-Affirming Care For Minors
The Supreme Court will review a Tennessee law that restricts hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery for minors.
Frankly I don’t even trust the ‘liberal’ justices to get this right. There is absolutely no reason for nine lawyers with no medical background to make a ruling that will impact the availability of life-saving medical treatments for one of our most vulnerable populations.
I’ve got an idea, let women do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, and stop being so creepy about the genders of our children. This shit is nobody’s business.
82Of course there's a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.
The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That's the crime here. Even then, it's important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That's been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That's the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.
25the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution
That is not the entire point of SCOTUS. That is not even in the constitution; it is a power the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.
Most SCOTUS decisions are judging appeals against federal law (including the constitution). Occasionally they rule a federal law unconstitutional, but not usually.
12The problem comes in when this is exactly what the Republican Party has planned to exploit. They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them. They also enacted project redmap before then, during obama’s first term, where they successfully took control of state houses and smaller offices throughout the country. And they fucked the maps to keep power. And all of that led to a right-stacked court that will lie to get the seat, take bribes when sitting in that seat, and then continually tow the party line with all of their insane fearmongering. They opened the door for abortion to be made illegal by the states they stacked in their favor and then changed the local laws to harm people.
You’re right, this is technically the way it’s supposed to work, but it doesn’t work anymore. Because there are no means of truly dealing with people exploiting the system and breaking it for their own gain except for toothless censures and other symbolic votes. And when those same broken systems made companies all the more powerful, they birthed FOX and MSNBC and made voting, not only really hard for specifically targeted communities that would act as a check on this type of shit, but also made it useless for the other people. Because they’re only doing exactly what the right wing mediasphere wants them to do.
7
Without the courts, the law stands. The Supreme Court is not the problem here. The Republican legislature is. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the legislature; and their failure to do that is a problem.
Also, this case is not about women's rights, it is about trans rights. Trans men are impacted too.
5Their failure to do that is by design.
1
And THIS is why you vote for harm reduction every fucking year.
Yes, this has been part of a plan going back to even before reagan. But one fucking election of people whining that the wrong person won the primaries extra fucked the supreme court for the foreseeable future. And we have the same clowns trying to pull the same shit going into this Fall.
38"Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against." -- W.C. Fields in a rare serious moment.
16Yeah. My father is a REAL piece of shit and said it in the context of "I hate that <homophobic slur> Bush" but it still sticks with me:
In primaries? Vote for who you like. When it is time for the real election? Vote for the platform you hate the least. Bare minimum, it gives you the right to bitch and moan come February. Because if you don't vote? You actively chose to not have a say in the government.
... well, you also may have been disenfranchised by a bunch of republican shitheads. But it is the thought that counts.
9
Clinton earned her loss.
3Since you seem very familiar with the shortcomings of First Past The Post voting, you probably would be interested to hear there are alternative electoral systems out there with no chance for a spoiler effect.
Alternative vote
Ranked choice voting
STAR voting
You should ask your representatives about electoral reform so we can fix this mathematical flaw in our voting system. Then no one would have to cast a "harm reduction vote". They would be free to vote for someone they feel best represents them, safe in the knowledge their vote would still count against those they don't want in office.
2I am less convinced that alternate voting models will make a significant difference (especially when we look at stuff like France actively unifying the left-leaning parties to fight fascism), but cool.
Unless you are going to implement that by early October, it isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is harm reduction and preserving human rights.
1
lmao you're really blaming people for wanting bernie to win for this
-10If it made you not vote for Clinton, then yes.
3
Every time the illegitimate SCOTUS takes away more rights from the normal people, I look at my conservative neighbors and recognize my enemy. Conservatives surround us and celebrate the pain, misery and death they cause. Yet, we treat them with kindness and professionalism as if conservatism is some legitimate world-view that deserves any amount of respect.
Conservatism is not normal. It is not respectable. Conservatives are a hate-group and should be openly identified and treated as such.
There has never been a peaceful resolution for fascism. To address a deadly infestation of conservatives, one must take action. We must all take action, or we can expect to be oppressed, tortured and murdered for generations to come.
This is not like WWII. There will be no outside force to save us. We must do this ourselves and we must do it immediately, before they achieve their permanent win condition.
21Shouldn't your enemy be the 1% that is funding the propaganda networks for both Republicans and democrats?
5We cannot defeat the bosses until we defeat their minions.
-1Ah yes, "both sides"!
-2
What action are you trying to imply, exactly?
Sounds like a divisive call for violence and civil war, the exact sort of shit the nuttier conservatives play up when talking about liberals. You aren't even advocating attacking the definite bad actors in positions of power, you are advocating attacking neighbors.
This even works as the exact sort of propaganda foreign state adversaries would use to stir up unrest to keep the US frozen from the inside, in to reduce our impact on potential global conflicts, ie Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.
When all you see are enemies, you've embraced the very hate you think you are standing against.
2
Fuck.
We know what they'll rule.
And then there will be a spike in the teen suicide rate.
17"What about the children?"
Drives kids to suicide
Conservatism is a cancer
12It's okay if those sort of kids die. They are an abomination unto the lord, after all. And if you kill yourself, you go to hell so bonus!
4
since this country has such a long evil and stupid history there are probably more documents you could pull out against this, rather than just being normal and evaluating the law on 'does it seem normal or moral to ban this' like a human fucking being would. almost like ConStITuTUiOnALiTy is a dumb fucking way validate the law.
oh and what, at least half of these guys are outlandishly corrupt but still get to sit there?
just send out little ballots in the mail for every case instead of relying on these scum, jesus.
11rather than just being normal and evaluating the law on ‘does it seem normal or moral to ban this’
This is the job of the legislature. To make law based on norms and morals, as well as a dozen other factors.
almost like ConStITuTUiOnALiTy is a dumb fucking way validate the law
The job of the judiciary is to rule based on what the various laws say, which obviously includes the Constitution.
Do you really want the judiciary ignoring the law and legislating from the bench? Remember, your preferred group isn't the one in the majority.
6oh well that seems like such an elegant system, thank god it's working so well. let's keep defending it.
-4
Does Roberts just forward what the Vatican sends him or is it more of a group effort?
7Permanently Deleted
1