Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[joecct]

If it's an equal protection issue that requires clarification, the SCOTUS should hear it. In the 60s, the south wanted voting rights to be determined by the states too, and that is why the Court's counter-majoritarian role is so important on such issues.

I guess SCOTUS then will tell us if gender identity is a protected class under the 14th Amendment?6

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I guess SCOTUS then will tell us if sexual identity is a protected class under the 14th Amendment?

I'd like to see orientation and gender identity become protected.

But I will tell you this: gender identity is not inherently sexual.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

trans boy: girl identifying as a boy
trans girl: boy identifyiog as a girl

< uuuuunkkk > <--- that was supposed to be the game show "failure" sound
Wrong.

Trans boy: FEMALE identifying as a boy
Trans girls: MALE identifying as a girl

Male/Female identify the biologic "plumbing".

Boy/Girl are something else. <-- intentionally ducking that

 

[burd]

I guess SCOTUS then will tell us if gender identity is a protected class under the 14th Amendment?6

I think uno will confirm that it's not that simple in equal protection cases. There are three different tests based upon the classes created or affected by the state action. Some class treatments have a very low threshold to clear in order to pass constitutional muster.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I guess SCOTUS then will tell us if gender identity is a protected class under the 14th Amendment?6

"Yes" would be a fine answer.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

< uuuuunkkk > <--- that was supposed to be the game show "failure" sound
Wrong.

Trans boy: FEMALE identifying as a boy
Trans girls: MALE identifying as a girl

Male/Female identify the biologic "plumbing".

Boy/Girl are something else. <-- intentionally ducking that

Buzz for you, too.

Trans male: Male born with female body parts.
Trans female: Female born with male body parts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I guess SCOTUS then will tell us if gender identity is a protected class under the 14th Amendment?

Yes. Quite simply, yes. Both that is the correct way for this to be settled, and the correct answer is: yes, of course.

Too bad Scalia's not still around. His sputtering on this would have been something to behold and cherish, particularly by future generations.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Secondary school and youth sports will be the 2nd most public "battleground".

They don't have to be. The only reason gender segregation makes sense in sports is the strength difference between the male and female fusilage -- it only makes sense when driven for the same reasons as, say, age segregation. You can just segregate the sports as with/without dick. You can be a trans female playing on the cis male team, but you can't be a trans female playing on the cis female team. Your dick defeats the purpose. It's pretty darn simple.

The reason bathrooms are so ridiculous is bathroom segregation is ridiculous.

And before you ask, yes, of course it all seems alien and weird to me, because I'm old and my time here in ticking down. We'll take our prejudices and idiocies with us to the grave, like the racists and sexists before us, as it should be.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

SCOTUS to GOP: drop dead.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

SCOTUS to GOP: drop dead.

The only thing I'm confused about is the 2017 elections issue. Can the courts really mandate a special election be held like that? What was the possible rationale for the lower court to decide that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The only thing I'm confused about is the 2017 elections issue. Can the courts really mandate a special election be held like that? What was the possible rationale for the lower court to decide that?

My guess is Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

The Court's ruling is that NC has denied its citizens a Constitutional government. The results of the 2016 elections are essentially invalid and NC has to rectify this as soon as possible to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

My guess is Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1:



The Court's ruling is that NC has denied its citizens a Constitutional government. The results of the 2016 elections are essentially invalid and NC has to rectify this as soon as possible to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities.

Interesting. I read through Wiki for the text and background and found this:

In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court held that the determination of whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a political question to be resolved by the Congress. In effect, the court held the clause to be non-justiciable.

So I'm wondering if the Court found that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to declare that a government isn't republican?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

So I'm wondering if the Court found that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to declare that a government isn't republican?

That's interesting, and I was just guessing. AFAIK the Court didn't unseat the officials elected in 2016, so I could easily be smoking crayons.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That's interesting, and I was just guessing.

Fair enough.

AFAIK the Court didn't unseat the officials elected in 2016, so I could easily be smoking crayons.

Does that... work?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Buzz for you, too.

Trans male: Male born with female body parts.
Trans female: Female born with male body parts.

Ah, but Kep ...

Trans male != trans boy
Trans female != trans girl

biological plumbing != self-identification

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

... so I could easily be smoking crayons.

Does that... work?

Where do you think burnt umber or burnt sienna comes from?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Where do you think burnt umber or burnt sienna comes from?

Burnt umber has been "sunglow" for a while. There is, however, still burnt sienna and burnt orange.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Burnt umber has been "sunglow" for a while. There is, however, still burnt sienna and burnt orange.

"Sunglow". Pfffffft.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

SCOTUS accepted a case about whether police need to get a search warrant before asking cell phone company to track location of suspect.

It will be interesting to see what they determine is an "expectation of privacy" or whether that "expectation" is part of the standard or not. Anyone who has watched any crime dramas on TV or at the movies would probably notice that police can track their location this way, at least on film.....

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether law-enforcement officials need search warrants to obtain data about the location of cellphone users, a major case that raises questions about privacy rights in the digital age.

The high court said it would hear an appeal by a defendant who was convicted in part based on evidence prosecutors obtained from wireless service providers about the whereabouts of his cellphone at particular times.
....
The government didn’t obtain a search warrant for the cell data. Instead, it sought and obtained the data under the Stored Communications Act, which sets a lower standard that allows law enforcers to seek records when there are reasonable grounds for believing the information is relevant to a criminal investigation.

[The Defendant] sought to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable government searches.

An appeals court ruled for the government, citing a 1979 Supreme Court ruling involving home telephone records that said people don’t enjoy Fourth Amendment protection for information they voluntarily reveal to a third party, such as a phone company.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

SCOTUS accepted a case about whether police need to get a search warrant before asking cell phone company to track location of suspect.

It will be interesting to see what they determine is an "expectation of privacy" or whether that "expectation" is part of the standard or not. Anyone who has watched any crime dramas on TV or at the movies would probably notice that police can track their location this way, at least on film.....

The way it seems to parse out to this non-attorney lay person is (a) police can get the cell phone tracking data without a warrant, but (b) they then will need to develop independent corroborating evidence to get a conviction; the conviction itself cannot be based primarily on the cell phone tracking data alone.