1 edit
@Suzianne saidTeacher: hey Jim, why are your friends calling you jill?
Again, just like the other numbnuts here, missing the point entirely.
Jill: that's just what they call me.
Teacher: I'm going to have to tell your parents.
Jill: please don't they won't think it's funny.
Teacher: in that case I'll tellthe supreme Court about this, they are mandating it.
Jill: why? SCOTUS doesn't write laws.
Teacher: they do now.
@Suzianne saidSubstantive due process arguments have been around for a long time.
Can we get your take on what this “substantive due process” decision entails and what it means for Americans going forward?
This is extremely bold for this supermajority Supreme Court to do this now, in the middle of the singular worst presidency ever. Bold, and reckless. But, as pointed out here, most Americans are going to gloss over it and react like these small-mind ...[text shortened]... laims in the Yahoo article I linked? (The Vox article insists on registration to view the article.)
I don't agree that they are necessary or useful in determining fundamental rights cases.
In general, they attempt to base what is a fundamental right upon some definition of "due process" unrelated to legal procedures.
I don't buy it and think any court's job is to determine what a fundamental right is based on our nature. Thus for example, decisions regarding procreation would be decided on whether bodily sovereignty is part of our basic nature, not what legislatures 160 years ago thought.
The court's ruling here is on a stay application and not on the ultimate merits. The case presented is a rather difficult one but if the SCOTUS means what it says here they are going to have a doctrinal problem if they want to uphold laws banning gender affirming care for minors with the parent's consent.
@Suzianne saidWhen MAGA's find they are losing a debate, they unfailingly resort to juvenile name calling, and it stings them even more to lose to a lady so you can put this one in the win category for you.
Simple Simon. How sad.
Try learning something, although I suspect it is beyond your ken.
Read the link. All of it.
- and speaking of wins, congrats on that win vs Dr. Gonzo. Your middlegame tactics are improving.
@wildgrass saidMaybe you are claiming the wrong one said the constitution provided a pathway to interfere in parent/child relationships. That was your friend 21 digit sluzy.
What? Maybe you're posting on the wrong thread. This one's about SCOTUS mandating teachers to tell parents that their kids nickname at school is different than their name at church.
@wildgrass saidA California law was struck down, scotus is not making any law. The decision PREVENTS California teachers from HIDING this from parents.
Teacher: hey Jim, why are your friends calling you jill?
Jill: that's just what they call me.
Teacher: I'm going to have to tell your parents.
Jill: please don't they won't think it's funny.
Teacher: in that case I'll tellthe supreme Court about this, they are mandating it.
Jill: why? SCOTUS doesn't write laws.
Teacher: they do now.
Why do you freaks want to do harm to children?
@mchill saidYou mean name calling like sluzy is doing in the post you are replying to?😂
When MAGA's find they are losing a debate, they unfailingly resort to juvenile name calling, and it stings them even more to lose to a lady so you can put this one in the win category for you.
- and speaking of wins, congrats on that win vs Dr. Gonzo. Your middlegame tactics are improving.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou have eyes, yet you do not see.
A California law was struck down, scotus is not making any law. The decision PREVENTS California teachers from HIDING this from parents.
Why do you freaks want to do harm to children?
@no1marauder saidIt's that "unrelated to legal procedures" that bothers me.
Substantive due process arguments have been around for a long time.
I don't agree that they are necessary or useful in determining fundamental rights cases.
In general, they attempt to base what is a fundamental right upon some definition of "due process" unrelated to legal procedures.
I don't buy it and think any court's job is to determine what a fundamental ri ...[text shortened]... blem if they want to uphold laws banning gender affirming care for minors with the parent's consent.
With a precedent like this, they could whip out a reasoning for any decision based on their whims. Not the Constitution, which is basically their only job.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI want laws that are based on the Constitution, dumbass.
A California law was struck down, scotus is not making any law. The decision PREVENTS California teachers from HIDING this from parents.
Why do you freaks want to do harm to children?