I think what AD was getting at is that "not having this protection in place makes me far, far more likely to resist arrest" and "this will kill people, by design" go together in a way you had perhaps not considered.
Does anyone know if state prisons tend to follow the federal guidelines on this stuff? Are Indiana prisons, for example, about to get a lot shittier.for trans inmates or were there never any protections to take away?
Jon Cooper is the chairman of the Democratic Coalition
not having this protection in place makes me far, far more likely to resist arrest
Not having this protection in place makes me far, far more adamant that you do not do that, because that will only increase the likelihood and duration of your need for what is no longer there.
this will kill people, by design
note that I did not ask for advice
can we drop this tangent, now
or is this "tell a trans woman how to feel about legislation designed to harm them" day
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Protections in the new North American trade pact for LGBTQ people are roiling conservative lawmakers in the House, who are urging President Donald Trump to rescind them.
They are displeased that the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement contains requirements that workers be protected from discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
The LGBT provisions were a Canadian priority — part of the so-called progressive trade agenda championed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and described as a “big win” by his government. And the Trudeau government already is less than enthusiastic about entering the agreement while steel tariffs remain in place. Canada’s ambassador to Washington joked in a recent interview with POLITICO that the country might sign the pact with a “bag over its head.”
It’s unclear whether the LGBT clauses even have real teeth. Both Canada and the U.S. agree it wouldn’t require a new law.
But it’s unprecedented language in a U.S. trade agreement.
+20
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Trump admin asks Supreme Court to take up transgender military ban before lower courts rule on it
Cons:
- With a conservative majority enshrined, this fucking sucks and is completely needless
- Based in nothing but base-pandering bigotry
Pros:
- SCOTUS almost never takes cases that haven’t had lower-court rulings first
- The Trump administration has literally no empirical defense to their argument
- Trump picked a bad week to start a fight with Chief Justice John Roberts about judicial impartiality
HIV commonly already gets people separated, just normally at the end of their contract since they’re restricted in assignments they can fulfill. But the military recently rolled out the deploy or get out policy to cut loose anyone that can’t deploy for over 12 months. Now stuff like this gets people insta separated since they can’t deploy based on requirements.
It’s not specifically targeted at people with HIV but it definitely and unfairly affects them much more harshly.
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
And here I was thinking it was only seeing the Immigration thread pop up after a couple days without traffic, that threatened my physical well being.
That people willing to risk their lives in service to this country, and a President who used his position to avoid said risk, are being denied the opportunity to serve, makes me sick to my stomach.
I fucking HATE these guys. This isn't an argument over marginal tax rates, or the role of government, or what government should be paying. This is "You people make me feel icky and so I'm going to ruin your lives to make me feel better.". Fucking petty small-minded bigoted asshole pricks.
Stepping away from the internets now, before I say something I'll get justifiably pinged for.
The military being awful didn't mean stuff like the military becoming integrated under Truman or making women a permanent part of military services weren't important for civil rights.
I understand the idea behind "great, now X group will be participating in the oppression of other groups" that comes with things like there being more women higher up in the military or more minority heads of major companies but at the very least that happening can represent certain social divisions weakening in a way that can help class solidarity and whatnot in the longterm
Trump only had 2 BS reasons why a ban should go into effect, and SCOTUS basically just said "well let it go in effect and we'll figure out if it's actually legal or not in a million years once a lawsuit makes it up here"
Trump only had 2 BS reasons why a ban should go into effect, and SCOTUS basically just said "well let it go in effect and we'll figure out if it's actually legal or not in a million years once a lawsuit makes it up here"
If it's found to be illegal, since 5 SCOTUS members said "continue to crime" can they be tried and taken off the court? Like, please?
I did see a brief mention (SCOTUSBlog) that this may have only stayed the rulings in Washington and California, but not the Maryland injunction? Not sure how that would work unless someone missed it somewhere, but...
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited January 2019
Yeah, this is a terrifying first step.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Don't think too hard about RBG's recent ill-health either.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
0
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Don't think too hard about RBG's recent ill-health either.
Cool.
Cool cool cool.
Jesus Christ I forgot about that, and it is most certainly not cool. Fuck.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Don't think too hard about RBG's recent ill-health either.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
The idiocy of it is the part that gets me.
First, it was women. Then blacks. Then gays. Jews, Chinese, Native Americans too. The Irish and Italians at least got "white privilege" out of their societal integration, but that was opposed too.
It's just fucking crazy we get to do this all over again. And there might be setbacks. But these people need to know that eventually they will be vilified for their opposition to fair rights.
Yet they keep ringing that fucking bell, and screaming "I'm a fucking bigot!". Because despite the occasional setback, they have been losing for 100+ years.
I just empathize for the people who are going to be hurt in the meantime. I just hope the arc of moral history bends fast this time.
+11
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I did see a brief mention (SCOTUSBlog) that this may have only stayed the rulings in Washington and California, but not the Maryland injunction? Not sure how that would work unless someone missed it somewhere, but...
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted Kollar-Kotelly's injunction earlier this month, concluding that the ban had been substantially revised by the time it was instituted by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in March 2018. But other federal courts had also ruled against the ban — and until Tuesday, those other injunctions remained in place.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
It seems like a pretty big hint to allow the enforcement of a discriminatory policy while the court cases make their way through the system. It seems very likely to make its way to the Supreme Court in due time, and if they were going to strike it down it would make everybody's life easier if it was never implemented in the first place.
Yeah, if they discharge all currently known trans soldiers, and don't get around to letting them back in for another year or two until a court case works up, the ban will have already done its job. At that point even the ones that would still want to serve would've had to move on to other careers. And the ban probably dies in 2020 regardless of what the court does.
+9
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm not even sure what's actually happening here .
What's happening to currents trans service members ? Are they being discharged over this?
It's being tossed to lower courts, that means it can still be challenged correct? Is this a sign that if a challenge goes to scotus it will be 5-4?
I know this is bad, but I'm not sure of the implications going forward.
It's being challenged in the lower courts, and up until now no action against trans members could be taken. The lower courts can still decide that this is wrong and put a stop to this, but until that process is complete the SCOTUS gave Trump the okay to have the policy acted on in the meanwhile. Which means yes, trans service people can be discharged and those signing up to join can be rejected.
Everything I've read seems to indicate that those currently in the service who have already transitioned or are in the midst of transitioning may continue to serve.
But any transgendered person who wishes to enlist in the service going forward must enlist as either their biological sex or not at all.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
It's not a good sign, I'd say.
The government's arguments (in Karnoski, at least) had focused somewhat on attacking the plaintiffs standing by alleging (among other things) that current servicemembers wouldn't face harm because they would be given waivers. Hypothetically.
Even if the plaintiffs have a strong chance of winning, I am guessing this SCOTUS would be eager to defer to the DOD on anything national security related, and probably ate the fantasy of good-faith waivers right up, and decided that was enough of a safe guard to allow the obviously wrong thing to continue while the case plays out.
See also: the same exact thing in the god-damned travel ban case.
Fucking hell.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+1
Options
MsAnthropyThe Lady of Pain Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the RhythmThe City of FlowersRegistered Userregular
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
And here I was thinking it was only seeing the Immigration thread pop up after a couple days without traffic, that threatened my physical well being.
That people willing to risk their lives in service to this country, and a President who used his position to avoid said risk, are being denied the opportunity to serve, makes me sick to my stomach.
I fucking HATE these guys. This isn't an argument over marginal tax rates, or the role of government, or what government should be paying. This is "You people make me feel icky and so I'm going to ruin your lives to make me feel better.". Fucking petty small-minded bigoted asshole pricks.
Stepping away from the internets now, before I say something I'll get justifiably pinged for.
I don't think the bold has it correct. I think it's actually "You people challenge traditional (white-straight-cis-dude centered) structures of power by nature of your existence and so I'm going to take away your right to exist." And, yes, there are a significant number of people in this country who want to take this forward through all of the darkest implications.
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
And here I was thinking it was only seeing the Immigration thread pop up after a couple days without traffic, that threatened my physical well being.
That people willing to risk their lives in service to this country, and a President who used his position to avoid said risk, are being denied the opportunity to serve, makes me sick to my stomach.
I fucking HATE these guys. This isn't an argument over marginal tax rates, or the role of government, or what government should be paying. This is "You people make me feel icky and so I'm going to ruin your lives to make me feel better.". Fucking petty small-minded bigoted asshole pricks.
Stepping away from the internets now, before I say something I'll get justifiably pinged for.
I don't think the bold has it correct. I think it's actually "You people challenge traditional (white-straight-cis-dude centered) structures of power by nature of your existence and so I'm going to take away your right to exist." And, yes, there are a significant number of people in this country who want to take this forward through all of the darkest implications.
There’s always at least one “political power” that exists for the preservation of traditional power structures so
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
And here I was thinking it was only seeing the Immigration thread pop up after a couple days without traffic, that threatened my physical well being.
That people willing to risk their lives in service to this country, and a President who used his position to avoid said risk, are being denied the opportunity to serve, makes me sick to my stomach.
I fucking HATE these guys. This isn't an argument over marginal tax rates, or the role of government, or what government should be paying. This is "You people make me feel icky and so I'm going to ruin your lives to make me feel better.". Fucking petty small-minded bigoted asshole pricks.
Stepping away from the internets now, before I say something I'll get justifiably pinged for.
I don't think the bold has it correct. I think it's actually "You people challenge traditional (white-straight-cis-dude centered) structures of power by nature of your existence and so I'm going to take away your right to exist." And, yes, there are a significant number of people in this country who want to take this forward through all of the darkest implications.
Joshua Block is an attorney for the LGBT-focused wing of the ACLU.
I know a lot of gnashing of teeth is happening, deservedly, over the ruling because of Gorsch and Kavanaugh, but Joshua points out here that we can't forget that Thomas is also a piece of shit who doesn't care about conflicts of interest.
(Mods, if this better goes in the SCOTUS thread let me know and I'll put it over there.)
Same thing has happened before with Thomas. His wife is a real piece of shit involved in a lot of really nasty lobbying work. It doesn't matter and he will never recuse himself because to the Right the SCOTUS is merely a tool to advance their regressive agenda.
It's probably better in the SCOTUS thread as this is about Thomas and his long-gnashed-about conflicts of interest via his wife, more than it's about this specific ruling (he's the worst)
Posts
can we drop this tangent, now
or is this "tell a trans woman how to feel about legislation designed to harm them" day
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/11/16/house-conservatives-lgbt-protection-trade-pact-977288?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/politics/military-transgender-ban-supreme-court/index.html
Cons:
- With a conservative majority enshrined, this fucking sucks and is completely needless
- Based in nothing but base-pandering bigotry
Pros:
- SCOTUS almost never takes cases that haven’t had lower-court rulings first
- The Trump administration has literally no empirical defense to their argument
- Trump picked a bad week to start a fight with Chief Justice John Roberts about judicial impartiality
Not certain how prevalent this is, or if it'll hit the wider media thanks to a thousand other things going on. Thought this might be appreciated here.
It’s not specifically targeted at people with HIV but it definitely and unfairly affects them much more harshly.
There's been movement in Trump's Transgender military band. The so-called conservative members (really, they're far more reactionary) of the SCotUS says that the ban can be implemented while the trial court considers the implications of such a band.
And here I was thinking it was only seeing the Immigration thread pop up after a couple days without traffic, that threatened my physical well being.
That people willing to risk their lives in service to this country, and a President who used his position to avoid said risk, are being denied the opportunity to serve, makes me sick to my stomach.
I fucking HATE these guys. This isn't an argument over marginal tax rates, or the role of government, or what government should be paying. This is "You people make me feel icky and so I'm going to ruin your lives to make me feel better.". Fucking petty small-minded bigoted asshole pricks.
Stepping away from the internets now, before I say something I'll get justifiably pinged for.
I have zero love for the military, but I sure hate having the rest of my rights taken away
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Yeah, this isn't about the military, really
It's about what it means that a military ban is even happening
I understand the idea behind "great, now X group will be participating in the oppression of other groups" that comes with things like there being more women higher up in the military or more minority heads of major companies but at the very least that happening can represent certain social divisions weakening in a way that can help class solidarity and whatnot in the longterm
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Attorney involved in trans rights legal work and advocacy:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Remember
"Are you now or have you ever been.."?
This has a broader social impact than many realize, too. Even at this stage. It's a clear indication of the direction the court wants to take. It's a clear statement that the institutions of America do not care to defend trans individuals.
It's horrifying to think of where this is heading. Like, I'm literally going to be losing sleep over this.
Don't think too hard about RBG's recent ill-health either.
Ruling against the injunction does not necessarily suggest ruling in favor on the merits.
Cool.
Cool cool cool.
This isn't really a helpful sort of contribution.
The idiocy of it is the part that gets me.
First, it was women. Then blacks. Then gays. Jews, Chinese, Native Americans too. The Irish and Italians at least got "white privilege" out of their societal integration, but that was opposed too.
It's just fucking crazy we get to do this all over again. And there might be setbacks. But these people need to know that eventually they will be vilified for their opposition to fair rights.
Yet they keep ringing that fucking bell, and screaming "I'm a fucking bigot!". Because despite the occasional setback, they have been losing for 100+ years.
I just empathize for the people who are going to be hurt in the meantime. I just hope the arc of moral history bends fast this time.
It looks like it lifted those stays
It seems like a pretty big hint to allow the enforcement of a discriminatory policy while the court cases make their way through the system. It seems very likely to make its way to the Supreme Court in due time, and if they were going to strike it down it would make everybody's life easier if it was never implemented in the first place.
What's happening to currents trans service members ? Are they being discharged over this?
It's being tossed to lower courts, that means it can still be challenged correct? Is this a sign that if a challenge goes to scotus it will be 5-4?
I know this is bad, but I'm not sure of the implications going forward.
But any transgendered person who wishes to enlist in the service going forward must enlist as either their biological sex or not at all.
It's not a good sign, I'd say.
No, but hope springs eternal.
The government's arguments (in Karnoski, at least) had focused somewhat on attacking the plaintiffs standing by alleging (among other things) that current servicemembers wouldn't face harm because they would be given waivers. Hypothetically.
Even if the plaintiffs have a strong chance of winning, I am guessing this SCOTUS would be eager to defer to the DOD on anything national security related, and probably ate the fantasy of good-faith waivers right up, and decided that was enough of a safe guard to allow the obviously wrong thing to continue while the case plays out.
See also: the same exact thing in the god-damned travel ban case.
Fucking hell.
I don't think the bold has it correct. I think it's actually "You people challenge traditional (white-straight-cis-dude centered) structures of power by nature of your existence and so I'm going to take away your right to exist." And, yes, there are a significant number of people in this country who want to take this forward through all of the darkest implications.
"The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
There’s always at least one “political power” that exists for the preservation of traditional power structures so
Yes absolutely
Eg: the vice President
Joshua Block is an attorney for the LGBT-focused wing of the ACLU.
I know a lot of gnashing of teeth is happening, deservedly, over the ruling because of Gorsch and Kavanaugh, but Joshua points out here that we can't forget that Thomas is also a piece of shit who doesn't care about conflicts of interest.
(Mods, if this better goes in the SCOTUS thread let me know and I'll put it over there.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar