Excellent, excellent, commentary. It captures the oral arguments totally. I wish I had been able to read it in real time while I was listening to the live stream!
"Tell me Spirit - these words, so seemingly accurate, from the transcript - are these the words that MUST NEEDS have been spoken, or are these the words that MIGHT have been spoken, if a wag or a wit were to turn the phrase!"
Excellent, excellent, commentary. I listened to the livestream on https://www.supremecourt.gov/, but I wish I could have reading this simultaneously in real time. You capture it perfectly!
Unfortunately, it's a stretch to imagine THIS SCOTUS with its right-wing supermajority not eagerly swallowing the bait. How could they possibly resist stepping in and ensuring that their own crude personal opinions get enshrined as the only ones that matter? Justice Sotomayor, if I have her objection right, is on the money: yes, of course any and all medical procedures could end up being regrettable, but is that really an excuse for the courts deciding which ones this or that person should have? It's so easy to suppose they will eventually say the same thing about abortion, or gay intercourse, and other things they themselves may disapprove of: "What if you came to regret your actions years later? We must prevent you just in case!" How is that compatible with democracy and liberty?
The party that complains about government intervention into public life wants to control all your decisions, including how you chose to identify. No contradiction there . . .
No, no, no, they complain about LEFT-WING government intervention into public life. You know, outrages like making sure racists don't lynch non-white folks, legalizing abortion rights, letting LGBTQ+ folks walk down the street without a Bible-fucker stone them to death.
What a great liveblog. Thank you so much for doing this!
If you want a capsule of what the important differences are between Democrats and Republicans, look at the nature of their Supreme Court justices. Look at the way Brown Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan are framing arguments and fighting to protect the vulnerable.
Look at the tortured 'logic' of the unreconstructed justices (and just the lack of good sense) as they scurry to help their unreconstructed colleague from Tennessee. They let the mask slip often; it's all about naked discrimination.
And this, THIS, is why the principle of States' Rights exist; so these unreconstructed states can wild out and hurt vulnerable people. That is why generally, if you are a member of one of these groups, you will often have a life full of toil and discrimination. Survivorship bias will of course select for the strong people able to outlast the withering discrimination. But as was pointed out, if you're dead you don't show up in the statistics.
Neither are non-trans people. I don't get the argument ...
==========================================
It was a prelude to arguing that if identity isn't fixed then it's not immutable, and if it's not immutable then there's no constitutional issue because as a matter of policy the US doesn't protect freedoms related to personal characteristics that could potentially change in the future, like religion.
So any non-gender specific medical treatment could be outlawed as not protected, as it could change in the future.
Eventually, “gender” will be a medical decision (due to the things coming up): can this person become pregnant or not … it shouldn’t matter what the “gender” is. Then they can rule on abortion, contraception, etc.
Liveblogging is hard. Especially when you don't know where an argument is going and have to just get the current gist of the current statement and move on. Sometimes I did a good job at making sure the context was revealed later, but sometimes the justices themselves don't do a good job, and that makes it difficult for lil' ol' me.
Thank you for this GENIUS blow-by-blow! Thanks for the dedication - that was a lot of time and patience and (duh) wit.
Excellent, excellent, commentary. It captures the oral arguments totally. I wish I had been able to read it in real time while I was listening to the live stream!
"Tell me Spirit - these words, so seemingly accurate, from the transcript - are these the words that MUST NEEDS have been spoken, or are these the words that MIGHT have been spoken, if a wag or a wit were to turn the phrase!"
A pure entreaty to the Ghost of SCOTUS Future.
Excellent, excellent, commentary. I listened to the livestream on https://www.supremecourt.gov/, but I wish I could have reading this simultaneously in real time. You capture it perfectly!
Thank you so much.
It sounds like some members of the court don't know how to come in out of the rain.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/04/skrmetti-supreme-court-case
Looks like they will uphold ban on medical care. Grr arrggh uggh
Time to ban circumcision
"Justice Gorsuch Is this really a ban since adults can access care? How does Equal Protection (EP) apply?"
Because kids are also covered by the fuckin' constitution, ya fuckin' bonehead!!
Yup that's what I heard too. I can't believe ( though I do believe) we will lose this when TN barely even earned its showing up trophy.
That was a fantastic write up. You are amazing! Wonkette is so fortunate to have you!
nice work, crip.
You know Thomas is mentally calculating the number of motor homes he could get by successfully overturning Loving . . .
Late to reading this, busy morning. Thanks, CD!
Unfortunately, it's a stretch to imagine THIS SCOTUS with its right-wing supermajority not eagerly swallowing the bait. How could they possibly resist stepping in and ensuring that their own crude personal opinions get enshrined as the only ones that matter? Justice Sotomayor, if I have her objection right, is on the money: yes, of course any and all medical procedures could end up being regrettable, but is that really an excuse for the courts deciding which ones this or that person should have? It's so easy to suppose they will eventually say the same thing about abortion, or gay intercourse, and other things they themselves may disapprove of: "What if you came to regret your actions years later? We must prevent you just in case!" How is that compatible with democracy and liberty?
The party that complains about government intervention into public life wants to control all your decisions, including how you chose to identify. No contradiction there . . .
No, no, no, they complain about LEFT-WING government intervention into public life. You know, outrages like making sure racists don't lynch non-white folks, legalizing abortion rights, letting LGBTQ+ folks walk down the street without a Bible-fucker stone them to death.
Crip Dyke wins the Internet for the day (or the week! or the month!), with the best court live-blog ever.
Aww, thanks!
What a great liveblog. Thank you so much for doing this!
If you want a capsule of what the important differences are between Democrats and Republicans, look at the nature of their Supreme Court justices. Look at the way Brown Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan are framing arguments and fighting to protect the vulnerable.
Look at the tortured 'logic' of the unreconstructed justices (and just the lack of good sense) as they scurry to help their unreconstructed colleague from Tennessee. They let the mask slip often; it's all about naked discrimination.
And this, THIS, is why the principle of States' Rights exist; so these unreconstructed states can wild out and hurt vulnerable people. That is why generally, if you are a member of one of these groups, you will often have a life full of toil and discrimination. Survivorship bias will of course select for the strong people able to outlast the withering discrimination. But as was pointed out, if you're dead you don't show up in the statistics.
Indeed, sometimes that is the purpose.
"Not all trans people are binary"
Neither are non-trans people. I don't get the argument ...
Loving: people are people no matter what color. Equal.
So why isn't it: People are people no matter what gender identity. Equal.
"Not all trans people are binary"
Neither are non-trans people. I don't get the argument ...
==========================================
It was a prelude to arguing that if identity isn't fixed then it's not immutable, and if it's not immutable then there's no constitutional issue because as a matter of policy the US doesn't protect freedoms related to personal characteristics that could potentially change in the future, like religion.
Thank you. That makes more sense to me.
So any non-gender specific medical treatment could be outlawed as not protected, as it could change in the future.
Eventually, “gender” will be a medical decision (due to the things coming up): can this person become pregnant or not … it shouldn’t matter what the “gender” is. Then they can rule on abortion, contraception, etc.
Gender should never be a medical decision in my opinion. Telling other people who they are won't end well.
Liveblogging is hard. Especially when you don't know where an argument is going and have to just get the current gist of the current statement and move on. Sometimes I did a good job at making sure the context was revealed later, but sometimes the justices themselves don't do a good job, and that makes it difficult for lil' ol' me.
You did an amazing job! I was reading the whole thing long after the fact, and got context of most all the arguments.
You were/are amazing!
THAT was amazing live-blogging