122
Supreme Court Will Rule On Gender-Affirming Care For Minors
(www.forbes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
122 points (97.7% liked)
News
23275 readers
1345 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Of course there's a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.
The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That's the crime here. Even then, it's important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That's been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That's the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.
That is not the entire point of SCOTUS. That is not even in the constitution; it is a power the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.
Most SCOTUS decisions are judging appeals against federal law (including the constitution). Occasionally they rule a federal law unconstitutional, but not usually.
Right, which was in the early 1800s. For better or worse, it's been a major component of their role for 90% of the nation's history. You're right though, I erred in using "entire point".
The problem comes in when this is exactly what the Republican Party has planned to exploit. They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them. They also enacted project redmap before then, during obama’s first term, where they successfully took control of state houses and smaller offices throughout the country. And they fucked the maps to keep power. And all of that led to a right-stacked court that will lie to get the seat, take bribes when sitting in that seat, and then continually tow the party line with all of their insane fearmongering. They opened the door for abortion to be made illegal by the states they stacked in their favor and then changed the local laws to harm people.
You’re right, this is technically the way it’s supposed to work, but it doesn’t work anymore. Because there are no means of truly dealing with people exploiting the system and breaking it for their own gain except for toothless censures and other symbolic votes. And when those same broken systems made companies all the more powerful, they birthed FOX and MSNBC and made voting, not only really hard for specifically targeted communities that would act as a check on this type of shit, but also made it useless for the other people. Because they’re only doing exactly what the right wing mediasphere wants them to do.
Yup, because they had control of the Senate. They were voted in. I'm not denying that Republicans are immoral, unethical scumbags with the intent to power game the system, but we have no tools to fix that in our current system other than overwhelming it. It only gets worse the longer we wait.
There really aren't a lot of other options for the citizenry. You can LARP at revolution or whatever, but I'm not volunteering first and I don't see a lot of others doing so either. I, and a lot of other vulnerable people, are not going to come out on top, so I'll pass on that solution.
Fact of the matter is, we could have elected Hillary in 2016. Sure, there was Republican meddling and Comey and yada yada, but it was fully within our abilities and we failed. The Supreme Court would look entirely different right now and we would still have medical rights. We did flip the senate, so it was fully in play before and then Mitch would not have been able to block the Garland appointment. Those are concrete outcomes from something that was fully possible for us to prevent. So I'm just not comfortable writing off voting as worthless at this stage, even with the acknowledged difficulties, gerrymandering, etc.
I wasn’t arguing for not voting. I was just making a point. Should’ve made that clearer, my b
All good, friend. I just think this is possible for us to defeat, even at the ballot box. The American people are powerful when they decide to wield their votes for the actual, true betterment of the country and our democracy. I really think we can do this, together.
Perhaps republicans would choose a more moderate candidate if they didn't have both hands shackled to the two party system via First Past The Post voting.
Very good points, thanks for the correction. My blind rage got in the way…
No worries! I'm full of rage on all this nonsense lately too and I've been in that same mode. I'm happy to join with you in November and in the meantime to start to fix this nonsense!