8mo ago

Rep. Nancy Mace says her anti-trans bathroom bill 'absolutely' targets Rep.-elect Sarah McBride

www.nbcnews.com Rep. Nancy Mace says her anti-trans bathroom bill 'absolutely' targets Rep.-elect Sarah McBride

McBride, the first out transgender person elected to Congress, will serve in the House starting next year, and Mace doesn't want her using women's bathrooms at the Capitol.

Summary

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) confirmed her proposed resolution to ban transgender individuals from using bathrooms that don’t align with their biological sex at the U.S. Capitol is aimed at Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress.

Mace also plans broader legislation for similar bans on federal property and in federally funded schools.

McBride responded by calling for respect and kindness among lawmakers.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stated Republicans are working on a resolution to address the unprecedented situation while ensuring dignity and respect for all members.

You're viewing a single thread.

65 comments

That makes it illegal, right? You can't pass a law specifically designed to target individuals.
- Makes it a hate crime.
- That is my understanding, yes. However, I am not a lawyer, and even if I was, do laws/the Constitution even matter anymore?
- It can be because of certain individuals, but it must apply equally to all.
  You didn't usually see it applied to a real person, but there are countless examples of it being applied to large corporations. For example, Florida can (and has) passed laws that apply to (e.g.) all amusement parks that operate their own emergency services. It was pretty clear that it would only affect Disney World. But at least in theory, it would apply to any others that opened up.
  
  It has been made clear that any attempt to tailor a law so that it would predominantly affect a specific person or specific group, as it would in this case because even if it applies to all trans-folk, it would specifically primarily impact this one individual and has been said to be for that purpose (particularly damning).
  Not that precedent means anything, so any attempt to litigate that winds up in front of the Supreme Court could go either way. I would hope that even they would see the pettiness here and follow precedent.
  I'm not sure of the specifics of the Florida/Disney cases. I do know that it probably could've at least been argued that the law was too narrowly tailored, but I'm not a lawyer or a multi-billion dollar company and maybe there are reasons.
  
  Do you have a source on that?
  
  So I didn't have a source, just recollection. I went to look for a source specifically as it pertains to transfolk and bathrooms.
  I don't know that it's an easy read, but I thought I'd link to something on congress.gov instead of a website whose bona fides I don't know.
  Although legislation may not alter the substantive meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted by the courts, Congress may define prohibited discrimination in various contexts, such as in employment and in federally funded education programs. The meaning of sex discrimination in those contexts has also been addressed by federal courts, including in claims brought by transgender individuals. Congress possesses substantial authority to alter the scope of prohibited conduct under civil rights statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Likewise, Congress has authority to provide exceptions to the application of those laws, such as the religious exception under Title IX
  Harvard Law Review has this to say:
  As novel iterations of laws targeting queer identity make their way through state legislatures, an alternative constitutional avenue for challenging them would be to identify and apply the factors that allowed the Romer Court to infer animus and flip the presumption of rationality to strike down a class-based law without applying a heightened form of scrutiny.
  I'll be honest, I'm not familiar enough with laws to fully comprehend what I'm reading here.
  Also, I was specifically thinking about Bills of Attainder, which punishes an individual or group without judicial process. One might argue this person is being punished for being trans, but I couldn't find anything specifically invoking the protection against these in the case of transfolk and bathrooms.
- We're in the post-consequences part of our timeline for any elected official with R next to their name. As long as the god emperor isn't angry, legality no longer matters. Merrick Garland spent four years proving this to us. (And the election results sealed it.)

65 comments