Well the case finally made it to the Supreme Court, we all knew it would that was just matter of time.
And it finally made it up the judicial ladder to the Supreme Court. The Washington Post wrote about the case,
The judges who have ruled in our favor many have also cited the case and the most of the judges who ruled against us were appointed by Trump.
In a lower court ruling the Post goes on to write,
It seems to me that the Trump appointed judges seem not to base their decisions on law but rather party ideology.
It is anyone’s crap shoot… place your bets!
Threats made by a politician, you want to bet which party he is from? I think you will win.
In case you forgot about what the case involves…The Supreme Court is being asked to hear its first case on gender-affirming care ever
The ACLU is trying to stop a ban from going into effect.
LGBTQ Nation
By John Russell
November 2, 2023The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the Supreme Court to block a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors.
On Wednesday, the ACLU, along with the ACLU of Tennessee and Lambda Legal, petitioned the court to review a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowing the state’s anti-trans law to go into effect. As The Hill notes, if the court accepts the case, it would be the first time the Supreme Court hears a case involving gender-affirming care.
Tennessee Republicans passed the state’s S.B. 1 in February, and it was signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee (R) in early March. In addition to banning Tennessee doctors from providing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to anyone under the age of 18, it also requires trans young people who are already receiving gender-affirming care to end their treatment by March 31, 2024, effectively forcing them to detransition.
Which has been our case, the lower courts have been split over us, in the 2020 case of Bostock v. Clayton County, NPR wrote back then,Tenn. teens, doctors ask U.S. Supreme Court to end transgender care ban
The plaintiffs are appealing a September federal circuit court ruling to let bans on gender-affirming care for minors take effect in Tennessee and Kentucky
By Casey Parks
November 1, 2023Transgender young people, their families and their medical providers on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to block a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for people younger than 18. If the high court takes the case, it would be the first opportunity the justices have had to weigh in on such restrictions, which 21 states have passed since 2021.
In a petition to the court, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal called on the justices to review a September decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld laws that bar transgender children in Tennessee and Kentucky from accessing puberty blockers and hormones. Tennessee’s ban also included gender-affirming surgeries, while Kentucky’s law didn’t address them.
[…]
Legal experts believe the Supreme Court will eventually rule on whether these bans violate the Constitution, but the court has great flexibility in deciding when and how to take cases. The court receives thousands of petitions each year but takes fewer than 70 or so.
Historically, the court has taken cases when the issue at hand is of great significance and the lower courts have issued contradictory rulings. Though federal district courts have remained divided on whether trans young people should have access to transition care, the only higher courts to issue rulings have been the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta — one level below the Supreme Court. Both have upheld legislative bans.
In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.
"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.
The judges who have ruled in our favor many have also cited the case and the most of the judges who ruled against us were appointed by Trump.
In a lower court ruling the Post goes on to write,
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, wrote in the Tennessee ruling: “If Tennessee wishes to regulate access to certain medical procedures, it must do so in a manner that does not infringe on the rights conferred by the United States Constitution, which is of course supreme to all other laws of the land. With regard to SB1, Tennessee has likely failed to do just this.”
In 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, the court ruled 6-3 that federal employment law protections apply to millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers. The court has also declined to review a number of cases where the lower courts had decided in favor of trans rights at school, in prisons and in disability protections. Earlier this year, it also denied West Virginia’s request to allow its law barring transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams at public schools go into effect while legal challenges to it play out.
Threats made by a politician, you want to bet which party he is from? I think you will win.
I don’t know about you, but threatening to kill someone is not a joking matter.DeSantis ‘stands by’ promise to ‘slit throats’ of federal bureaucrats
The Hill
By Lauren Sforza
November 2, 2023GOP presidential candidate Ron DeSantis doubled down on his promise to “slit the throats” of federal bureaucrats, saying it was “colorful” language.
MSNBC’s Willie Geist pressed the Florida governor on remarks he made in August, in which he vowed to “start slitting throats on Day 1” of the “deep state” in government. Geist questioned DeSantis on whether he had “any regret” in using that language, pointing to the increasing number of threats against lawmakers and officials.
DeSantis responded that he did not regret it, saying “people knew it was a figure of speech.” When Geist asked why he didn’t instead say he wanted to “fire” people in Washington, DeSantis said he was “being colorful.”
“Well, because you’re, you’re being colorful at some of the stuff but you basically — you need to bring in serious accountability,” he told Geist Thursday on “Morning Joe.”
No comments:
Post a Comment