The Supremes

[hobbes2702 12536]

1 minute ago, troph said:

With the court doing their bidding they will kill the filibuster pass the laws and the court will affirm them all. We are so fucked so so so so fucked.

im starting to think moving to a blue state really isn’t enough.  God dammit. 

Correct. They have now seen how far the court is willing to go. They are at the realization stage of their fascist dreams 

[Nivek 16691]

With the court doing their bidding they will kill the filibuster pass the laws and the court will affirm them all. We are so fucked so so so so fucked.
im starting to think moving to a blue state really isn’t enough.  God dammit. 

Hello there.

[troph 24028]

12 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Hello there.

Yeah?

[JBJ 3598]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you really want to know, Section 101 of the Patent Act defines what subject matter is eligible for patent protection.  For more than 200 years, it and its analogs basically forbade things that were physically impossible, or so abstract that they could not be reduced to a physical object or method steps, and occasionally discovered laws of nature.  So it was only used against crackpot inventors by the Patent Office to deny them patents on perpetual motion machines and weird-ass ideas.  Completely non-controversial.

Starting about 10 years ago, in response to the made up software patent/troll crisis, the Court took it upon itself to make Section 101 a weapon against software and business method patents, allowing wholesale infringers like Google and Apple to knock off patent owners early in a litigation.

But the courts have lost control of the doctrine almost entirely, it's a meaningless gobbledygook that seriously undermines the patent system with unpredictability, both in the getting of patents at the PTO, and the suing over them in the courts.  It's so bad that even the advocates for it in the first place, big tech, and everyone else are begging the courts for clarity and resolution.  The lower courts have basically thrown up their hands and said "our hands are tied by the Supreme Court."  

American Axle was a case over a patent on automotive drive shafts and optimizing them for vibration.  It presented a fairly golden opportunity for the court to clarify the law.

Patent, copyright, maybe even trademark are due for an upgrade for the digital age.

But these things are too technical for courts to sort through based on a single case.  Lawmakers don't even do a good job half the time (DMCA).

Edited July 1, 2022 by JBJ

[TwiceHorn 30851]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Patent facts are never sexy.  In fact, one of the things that made this such a golden opportunity is that the technology was so concrete and not abstract or difficult to understand.

This is about the best, most concise post on the issues I have seen. https://www.patentdocs.org/2022/06/the-supreme-court-sidesteps-americas-patent-eligibility-crisis.html

The "software patent" problem, and related troll problem begged for a legislative solution.  Instead, it got this.

And in a cautionary way, this situation is very illustrative.  The Supreme Court has announced what is the law in this area.  And now it can't be fixed legislatively.

[Captainant 26927]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Patent, copyright, maybe even trademark are due for an upgrade for the digital age.

But these things are too technical for courts to sort through based on a single case.  Lawmakers don't even do a good job half the time (DMCA).

Crazy thing is though - we have mechanisms to fully address these issues, but there's so much political money in the system (thanks roberts and citizens united...) that it's virtually impossible to craft effective legislation now. It's all just a vehicle for the lobbyists to get a return on their investment - completely co-opted our representatives from the will of the people in favor of whomever has the most greenbacks

[Brisketexan 103660]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Crazy thing is though - we have mechanisms to fully address these issues, but there's so much political money in the system (thanks roberts and citizens united...) that it's virtually impossible to craft effective legislation now. It's all just a vehicle for the lobbyists to get a return on their investment - completely co-opted our representatives from the will of the people in favor of whomever has the most greenbacks

Correct.  Citizens United ensured complete and total regulatory capture.  Like I said above, their dream is a fascist oligarchical state -- if you want to see our end-game, take a trip to Moscow.

[GopherRock 1762]

Actually, if you want to see the endgame, see Iran: A largely secular populace ruled by a small cabal of religious fundamentalists.

[Hookah Horns 2923]

15 hours ago, Pods said:

That is where we disagree. This is a definitive statement and it is definitely wrong. State law does not "control" on federal land, federal laws do. State laws also apply due to a regulatory decision, but full control of nearly all federal areas is retained by the feds. The regulations, rules, permits etc are all done by the feds. In our case, I doubt the state even knew we were there. 

Your post is clearly implying that the Feds could not build abortion facilities on BLM land, because those lands are somehow controlled by state laws. This is 100% false and even if that were true and those state laws conflicted with federal laws, the federal laws have priority due to the Supremacy clause. 

 

Good lord, man. I clearly meant that the state law applies and I have said multiple times that the regulation can be easily changed by BLM. You're talking about conflict of laws principles, I wasn't. Once more: I was only commenting that state law applies under the current regulation. You're def a whole weirdo for still trying to debate this when I already said "controls" wasn't the best word choice.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Hookah Horns

[Brisketexan 103660]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Took less than a week for a court to use the Dobbs rational for other culture war issues - Alabama Supreme Court cited Dobbs as the reason why the State can deny gender affirming care - because such care isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history.  

(the court also lied and said there wasn’t consensus about medical treatment - you know kind of like evolution is just a theory and climate change is natural an ice age is coming soon too whackadoo conservative thought)

put aside the debate about should minors get affirming care - which we’ve had on this issue - There is not one progressive cause past or present that is “deeply rooted in our nations history” when the starting point for our history says IN OUR FUCKING CONSTITUTION THAT BLACK MEN ARE 3/5 OF A HUMAN AND IMPLICITLY WITHOUT SAYING IT WOMEN OF ANY COLOR ARE 0/5 HUMAN. 
 

the Supreme Court is a council of Baptist Deacons, except they don’t just pass the plate around for money and scowl at you if you don’t pay they can take your life liberty and pursuit of happiness away from you because yours isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history.
 

we are all so fucked. So fucked.

 

https://apple.news/ASMR-GkZ0Q7O4LxtFATI9rQ

Troph, as you well know, my wife marries people.  All people.  And she has for years, even before the government would recognize some of those marriages.  Her policy back then was that she would perform the wedding ritual for all.  And, if/when the government legally allowed, she would come back and perform the full legal ceremony for free.  When Obergefel came out, she ended up "re-marrying" multiple couples, eager to make their union official.

Two days ago, she got her first call from a same sex couple who have her booked to marry them later this year.  They are still keeping that date for the wedding with all the family and friends.  But they asked her if she would be willing to perform the legal ceremony next week, while it is still legal.  And they asked her if she had a place to perform the ceremony, and what it would cost them.  She gave them the same answer that she gave before Obergefel -- there is no cost, and she would be happy to perform it at our home.  We have a nice deck overlooking a greenbelt, multiple couples have married there.

For those of you who celebrate this SCOTUS, your fellow citizens are already scrambling to do their best to secure a future for themselves and their families.  And I know that you LIKE IT THAT WAY.  So, in case my sentiments weren't clear, burn in hell.

[Nivek 16691]

53 minutes ago, troph said:

Yeah?

I just haven't seen you post in a while.  Glad you are alive, hope you are well.

[wildcat09 28563]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  Citizens United ensured complete and total regulatory capture.  Like I said above, their dream is a fascist oligarchical state -- if you want to see our end-game, take a trip to Moscow.

Well, Moscow mixed with, like, 1840s southern plantations.

[Fastbreak 3891]

What is not in play now?

Sanford?
Miranda?
Brown?

I think everything can be torn down at this point. Someone needs somehow to find the money trail. The only reason to be this idiotic and cruel is for hard cash. There has to be a trail.

[Brisketexan 103660]

Just now, Fastbreak said:

What is not in play now?

Sanford?
Miranda?
Brown?

I think everything can be torn down at this point. Someone needs somehow to find the money trail. The only reason to be this idiotic and cruel is for hard cash. There has to be a trail.

Well, fundamentally, if the litmus test is "is it deeply rooted in American history?", then pretty much nothing post Plessy v. Ferguson counts for shit.  Again, Alito has created a test that "if a right or other legal concept wasn't recognized in 1789, then it cannot be constitutionally protected" is just fucking jaw-dropping, and 100% inconsistent with the intent of the founders they claim to revere.  Men like Jefferson EXPRESSLY SAID that they did not expect the constitution to be frozen in time.

Think of it this way -- one of the most "deeply rooted in American history" things ever is "black people are slaves/second class citizens."  Note that this continued EVEN AFTER THE 13th and 14th Amendments.  As a matter of practice, black people have been less than fully human for the vast majority of American history.  It's one of our most consistent treatments of any group of people.  I can't see how you can apply Alito's litmus test and not simply declare that black people do not have the same rights as white people.  There is no rational way to apply the test and reach any other conclusion.

Because it's the sickest, stupidest, most bullshit "legal test" the court has ever come up with.

[JBJ 3598]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is about the best, most concise post on the issues I have seen. https://www.patentdocs.org/2022/06/the-supreme-court-sidesteps-americas-patent-eligibility-crisis.html

The "software patent" problem, and related troll problem begged for a legislative solution.  Instead, it got this.

And in a cautionary way, this situation is very illustrative.  The Supreme Court has announced what is the law in this area.  And now it can't be fixed legislatively.

Do you think Alice was decided incorrectly or is it just too broad/vague and difficult to apply properly?

I only understand Alice as the company that tired to patent the concept of escrow because they digitized it.  I'm sure there's some technical things I don't know about it.

Edited July 1, 2022 by JBJ

[wildcat09 28563]

I think it's very possible that they'll overturn Heart of Atlanta Motel.  

[Brisketexan 103660]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I think it's very possible that they'll overturn Heart of Atlanta Motel.  

Yep.

And just for reference, for you SCOTUS apologists and Dobbs fan, this is not "slippery slope" logical fallacy.  You see, when someone EXPRESSLY SAYS "I am going to ski down this slope, to the bottom of the mountain right there," it is not fallacious to observe "hey....I think they're going to ski down the slop to the bottom of the mountain right there."  Read Thomas's dissent.  Read what the Alabama courts are doing right now.  Read what numerous architects of the New Right's legal strategy are saying, out loud, that they are planning to do.  Listen to what Ken Paxton has said about Lawrence v. Texas.

What they intend is no less than a complete retrograde retooling of American society, from top to bottom.  And if you aren't a straight white male, prepare to get fucked, no lube at all.

[Captainant 26927]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think it's very possible that they'll overturn Heart of Atlanta Motel.  

They've already gutted the voting rights act, there's literally nothing stopping them from gutting the civil rights act as well.

[troph 24028]

18 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I just haven't seen you post in a while.  Glad you are alive, hope you are well.

CWS then Fascism on the Supreme Court brought me back for now. Thanks for the kind words. I’m good all things considered?

[troph 24028]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

They've already gutted the voting rights act, there's literally nothing stopping them from gutting the civil rights act as well.

Not deeply rooted in the 3/5 compromise. 

[tchookem 3895]

What is not in play now?

Sanford?
Miranda?
Brown?

I think everything can be torn down at this point. Someone needs somehow to find the money trail. The only reason to be this idiotic and cruel is for hard cash. There has to be a trail.

I disagree, this kind of cruelty can only be done by true believers. I doubt there's big money behind all of this. This is creating America in their own image shit. It's personal to them.

[Brisketexan 103660]

1 minute ago, tchookem said:

15 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

What is not in play now?

Sanford?
Miranda?
Brown?

I think everything can be torn down at this point. Someone needs somehow to find the money trail. The only reason to be this idiotic and cruel is for hard cash. There has to be a trail.

I disagree, this kind of cruelty can only be done by true believers. I doubt there's big money behind this. It's personal to them.

It is a beast amped up on the "steroids" of power, and now just rampaging for the sake of rampaging.  We are well down the road of doing cruel things because "fuck you, we can, and you can't stop us."  That's how human nature works.  When people who have a single-minded focus on power, and they see the surest way of demonstrating the degree of that power is to hurt people, showing that they cannot be stopped, this is how it goes.  "Fuck you, I'm in charge, you're my little bitch, and I can do whatever I want to you -- here, watch this as I smash eggs on your head and hammer nails through your feet, and you can't do shit to stop me, that's how powerful I am."  That's what we're seeing -- how raw power is used by humans at their worst.  It is what we have always called "evil."  This is exactly what evil looks like.  The word has meaning, and we're living through the definition.

[chainsaw 9668]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, fundamentally, if the litmus test is "is it deeply rooted in American history?", then pretty much nothing post Plessy v. Ferguson counts for shit.  Again, Alito has created a test that "if a right or other legal concept wasn't recognized in 1789, then it cannot be constitutionally protected" is just fucking jaw-dropping, and 100% inconsistent with the intent of the founders they claim to revere.  Men like Jefferson EXPRESSLY SAID that they did not expect the constitution to be frozen in time.

Think of it this way -- one of the most "deeply rooted in American history" things ever is "black people are slaves/second class citizens."  Note that this continued EVEN AFTER THE 13th and 14th Amendments.  As a matter of practice, black people have been less than fully human for the vast majority of American history.  It's one of our most consistent treatments of any group of people.  I can't see how you can apply Alito's litmus test and not simply declare that black people do not have the same rights as white people.  There is no rational way to apply the test and reach any other conclusion.

Because it's the sickest, stupidest, most bullshit "legal test" the court has ever come up with.

It's like some sick Eli Roth adaptation of the children's book Amelia Bedelia or the schoolyard game Simon Says.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

And just for reference, for you SCOTUS apologists and Dobbs fan, this is not "slippery slope" logical fallacy.  You see, when someone EXPRESSLY SAYS "I am going to ski down this slope, to the bottom of the mountain right there," it is not fallacious to observe "hey....I think they're going to ski down the slop to the bottom of the mountain right there."  Read Thomas's dissent.  Read what the Alabama courts are doing right now.  Read what numerous architects of the New Right's legal strategy are saying, out loud, that they are planning to do.  Listen to what Ken Paxton has said about Lawrence v. Texas.

What they intend is no less than a complete retrograde retooling of American society, from top to bottom.  And if you aren't a straight white male, prepare to get fucked, no lube at all.

 

I agree with your post, but as you are aware, we're all pretty fucked.

Biden Urged to Take Emergency Action After 'Disastrous' Climate Ruling by Supreme Court (commondreams.org)

 

Of course, if only we had elected a President who would take action:

Progressives Hand Biden List of 55 Executive Actions Because 'Working People Can't Wait' (commondreams.org)

 

[Gap03 3194]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When people who have a single-minded focus on power, and they see the surest way of demonstrating the degree of that power is to hurt people, showing that they cannot be stopped, this is how it goes.  "Fuck you, I'm in charge, you're my little bitch, and I can do whatever I want to you -- here, watch this as I smash eggs on your head and hammer nails through your feet, and you can't do shit to stop me, that's how powerful I am."  That's what we're seeing -- how raw power is used by humans at their worst.  It is what we have always called "evil."  This is exactly what evil looks like.  The word has meaning, and we're living through the definition.

Alito:

Edited July 1, 2022 by Gap03

[C-Man 26762]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Troph, as you well know, my wife marries people.  All people.  And she has for years, even before the government would recognize some of those marriages.  Her policy back then was that she would perform the wedding ritual for all.  And, if/when the government legally allowed, she would come back and perform the full legal ceremony for free.  When Obergefel came out, she ended up "re-marrying" multiple couples, eager to make their union official.

Two days ago, she got her first call from a same sex couple who have her booked to marry them later this year.  They are still keeping that date for the wedding with all the family and friends.  But they asked her if she would be willing to perform the legal ceremony next week, while it is still legal.  And they asked her if she had a place to perform the ceremony, and what it would cost them.  She gave them the same answer that she gave before Obergefel -- there is no cost, and she would be happy to perform it at our home.  We have a nice deck overlooking a greenbelt, multiple couples have married there.

For those of you who celebrate this SCOTUS, your fellow citizens are already scrambling to do their best to secure a future for themselves and their families.  And I know that you LIKE IT THAT WAY.  So, in case my sentiments weren't clear, burn in hell.

That's awesome, @Brisketexan. Your wife is doing good things. (Wish we could say the same about other Americans.)

[Brisketexan 103660]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That's awesome, @Brisketexan. Your wife is doing good things. (Wish we could say the same about other Americans.)

There are plenty of folks who are now thinking long and hard about how they can actually resist.  We need it to be more, but it's a good start.  We are going to have to fight and resist, and some of it in ways that we probably don't want to imagine.  Big stuff.  Little stuff.  Just do SOME stuff.  

Sure, I think it' going to be futile for a long, long time, but I fucking LOVE futile gestures of defiance.  They're kinda my thing.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

18 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Can’t burn it all down without burning the rivers, too.

[chainsaw 9668]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is about the best, most concise post on the issues I have seen. https://www.patentdocs.org/2022/06/the-supreme-court-sidesteps-americas-patent-eligibility-crisis.html

The "software patent" problem, and related troll problem begged for a legislative solution.  Instead, it got this.

And in a cautionary way, this situation is very illustrative.  The Supreme Court has announced what is the law in this area.  And now it can't be fixed legislatively.

How would you fix it?

[tx 3 putt 75600]

Alabama running wild with the roe v wade ruling, this is only  the beginning 

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2022/06/29/alabama-transgender-medicine-ban-attorney-general-office-dobbs-decision/7771494001/

 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect any right “not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions.”

Edited July 1, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[abuelo gringo 314]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's interesting how both the Expanse and Star Trek (and pop culture generally) all predicted a major social upheaval in the 21st century. In The Expanse it was the icecaps melting and flooding the planet, until they could adapt. In Star Trek, it was a global nuclear war and fascism.

We're lucky enough to get all of the above!

Too many years since I read the books, but (per Wikipedia) Heinlein's Neamiah Scudder became leader of a theocracy in 2012, with the ensuing revolution in 2100.  Seems many fictional prophesies were too close to the truth.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, troph said:

Took less than a week for a court to use the Dobbs rational for other culture war issues - Alabama Supreme Court cited Dobbs as the reason why the State can deny gender affirming care - because such care isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history.  

(the court also lied and said there wasn’t consensus about medical treatment - you know kind of like evolution is just a theory and climate change is natural an ice age is coming soon too whackadoo conservative thought)

put aside the debate about should minors get affirming care - which we’ve had on this issue - There is not one progressive cause past or present that is “deeply rooted in our nations history” when the starting point for our history says IN OUR FUCKING CONSTITUTION THAT BLACK MEN ARE 3/5 OF A HUMAN AND IMPLICITLY WITHOUT SAYING IT WOMEN OF ANY COLOR ARE 0/5 HUMAN. 
 

the Supreme Court is a council of Baptist Deacons, except they don’t just pass the plate around for money and scowl at you if you don’t pay they can take your life liberty and pursuit of happiness away from you because yours isn’t deeply rooted in our nations history.
 

we are all so fucked. So fucked.

 

https://apple.news/ASMR-GkZ0Q7O4LxtFATI9rQ

How can you put aside that issue here?  This case is about an Alabama statute that prohibits puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries for minors.  I guess you are in favor of minors being given puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgery?

Also, it is not a court citing it.  It is Alabama's attorney citing Dobbs to support their position that the state has the authority to block minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitals surgically altered.

[HenryJames 65572]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

We have a nice deck overlooking a greenbelt, multiple couples have married there.

And the spiral staircase.

[Dahobbs 17255]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How can you put aside that issue here?  This case is about an Alabama statute that prohibits puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries for minors.  I guess you are in favor of minors being given puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgery?

Also, it is not a court citing it.  It is Alabama's attorney citing Dobbs to support their position that the state has the authority to block minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitals surgically altered.

For his next trick, Johnny will argue with one of the last remaining holocaust survivors about the holocaust really not being that bad and that we shouldn't have laws against genocide. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Serak The Preparer 3413]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How can you put aside that issue here?  This case is about an Alabama statute that prohibits puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries for minors.  I guess you are in favor of minors being given puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgery?

 

You must be an incredibly shitty lawyer. Being against a law banning something doesn't mean I'm for that same thing.

I believe you've stated in the past you are against criminalization of marijuana. Do you consider yourself in favor of minors being given marijuana then?

I am for doctors and patients being able to discuss and decide upon appropriate treatments and interventions.

 

[JBJ 3598]

Can someone think it's constitutional, a bad law, and also be wary of the practice?

No, because this is no place for nuance.

[DDD Dad 14078]

3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Good lord, man. I clearly meant that the state law applies and I have said multiple times that the regulation can be easily changed by BLM. You're talking about conflict of laws principles, I wasn't. Once more: I was only commenting that state law applies under the current regulation. You're def a whole weirdo for still trying to debate this when I already said "controls" wasn't the best word choice.

Why don't you guys just fuck already?

[Willfully Horn 7892]

On 6/27/2019 at 7:23 PM, jettrink said:

We are NOT a fucking democracy!  We are a representative republic.  I am so sick of hearing this democracy bullshit out of the leftists I could puke!

Fuck off, puke breath. The radical right knows they lost the public debate. Now they plan on throwing out the popular vote and sending electors chosen by the gerrymandered minority. That’s not representative.

Negged

[troph 24028]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

How can you put aside that issue here?  This case is about an Alabama statute that prohibits puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries for minors.  I guess you are in favor of minors being given puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgery?

Also, it is not a court citing it.  It is Alabama's attorney citing Dobbs to support their position that the state has the authority to block minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitals surgically altered.

I read the article, it stated otherwise - if the opinion doesn’t cite it ok.  The issue is this MASTER PRECDENT that allows conservatives to do as they please.  That’s where we are headed. But other than that I don’t need to talk to you. I didn’t come here to engage with you, you’re the problem. 

[TwiceHorn 30851]

4 hours ago, JBJ said:

Do you think Alice was decided incorrectly or is it just too broad/vague and difficult to apply properly?

I only understand Alice as the company that tired to patent the concept of escrow because they digitized it.  I'm sure there's some technical things I don't know about it.

I think it's largely incorrect. It answers too many questions about patentability in a summary fashion. 

 

 

[fattyflattie 4633]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

And the spiral staircase.

Coyote adjacent, though. 

[Dahobbs 17255]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Can someone think it's constitutional, a bad law, and also be wary of the practice?

No, because this is no place for nuance.

1) If the "it" you're referring to is the law banning the practice, then as a factual matter at this point it almost is certainly constitutional per Dobbs.

2) Sure, I feel somewhat similar about abortion. I think banning it should be unconstitutional and that the Court isn't supposed to lightly throw away 50 years of precedent establishing substantive rights. I think a law banning it is bad. But I also believe it should be avoided when possible. 

3) There is plenty of room for nuance. But that isn't what Johnny is about and you know it.  

[Dahobbs 17255]

57 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Fuck off, puke breath. The radical right knows they lost the public debate. Now they plan on throwing out the popular vote and sending electors chosen by the gerrymandered minority. That’s not representative.

Negged

Just now catching up on all 130 pages huh? You're just 3 years behind right now.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

42 minutes ago, troph said:

I read the article, it stated otherwise - if the opinion doesn’t cite it ok.  The issue is this MASTER PRECDENT that allows conservatives to do as they please.  That’s where we are headed. But other than that I don’t need to talk to you. I didn’t come here to engage with you, you’re the problem. 

That article is extremely misleading and attempts to hide what the case is about.  It is about a law that bans minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitalia surgically altered.

The Alabama court did not cite anything.  The case is pending and one of the litigants cited Dobbs in their briefing.

[Willfully Horn 7892]

42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Just now catching up on all 130 pages huh? You're just 3 years behind right now.

Next I’m gonna read the thread on realignment. Sounds interesting.

[Sawbonz 26910]

The executive branch needs to start ignoring these batshit rulings. If Roberts wants to enforce them let him raise and army and try

[Sawbonz 26910]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That article is extremely misleading and attempts to hide what the case is about.  It is about a law that bans minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitalia surgically altered.

The Alabama court did not cite anything.  The case is pending and one of the litigants cited Dobbs in their briefing.

Link a credible source of minors undergoing genitalia altering surgery (other than for intersex). 

[tx 3 putt 75600]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

How can you put aside that issue here?  This case is about an Alabama statute that prohibits puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgeries for minors.  I guess you are in favor of minors being given puberty blockers and sex reassignment surgery?

Also, it is not a court citing it.  It is Alabama's attorney citing Dobbs to support their position that the state has the authority to block minors from receiving puberty blockers and having their genitals surgically altered.

Shouldn’t this be between the Dr / parent / patient ?

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45214]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Shouldn’t this be between the Dr / parent / patient ?

Let me answer for Johnny:  no.

[safe sex 11608]

Like with abortion, it's about control, not about what's "best" for trans kids.