The Supreme Court's latest grant of emergency relief to the Trump administration illustrates in technicolor the direct (and ugly) consequences of the two different ways it keeps messing up "equity."
I just renewed my passport. The application asked for my hair color (despite the color picture). I debated continuing to use "brown" since that's what the last one said, but decided "gray" was more currently accurate. However, by the court's ruling, I suppose I should have put "blonde", since that was my hair color at birth. Their ruling makes as much sense as that. Given that passports are used in part as identification, it is absurd to require data that doesn't describe the current person.
Why what possible harm could befall American citizens holding passports bearing evidence of gender fluidity etc if, for instance, local law requires that they immediately suffer the tortures of the damned. (What could go wrong?)
Why yes, it’s just like if the government required you to put down there on the passport “born a negro slave.” What’s the harm? Just an historical fact.
Because my daughter is transgender, today my heart ached for the lack of humanity she is afforded by these despicable creatures. And I wrote to her: I share this piece on the despicable morally and legally bankrupt SCOTUS6 decision today not to rub salt in the wounds but to underscore for you that there are far more of us than there are of those 6 POS, even if you add in their enablers and supporters. Far more of us here and everywhere. Never forget that. In the long and fruitful and wonderful life you deserve and will lead there will be a day when they will be no more than a dark stain of an asterisk, their names to live forever in infamy and disgrace as an affront to the honorable and good among us.
The second sentence in that paragraph is no better than the one you highlighted. What is the purpose of the administration’s policy, beyond a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group? Tellingly, the majority doesn’t even attempt to say what it might be — because, of course, there is no other purpose for listing a passport holder’s sex at birth. What an utterly shameful and lawless ruling.
Forget about irreparable harm and balancing the equities. I wonder when Steve will start admitting that the SCOTUS-6 granted Trump emergency relief in this case because it advanced their extreme right wing policy preferences supporting an imperial Presidency to get rid of liberal legislation and Christian nationalism with its concomitant hatred of and discrimination against LGBT persons. Look out, Obergefel!
What vile, hateful, odious “people” these justices are. Also pretty ignorant since there is no sexual identity available at conception. Just some random cells. If they had said “at birth” they would at least have some argument (still not good) for the position. I didn’t think my disgust towards the SCOTUS6 could get any deeper, but they managed to prove me wrong again.
The Supreme Court ignoring extensive fact finding by lower courts is, to me, the most worrisome, now long-term, trend. Shelby stood out, for me, in this regard, And I fear the upcoming case dealing with Section 2 of the VRA will suffer similarly. To me, this deficiency, in particular, is why support for the court has collapsed - not [as so many defenders of the court contend] the decisions (ends), but the means falling so very far short of the best practices of jurisprudence established over centuries. All judges have to work with are facts and reason. Limiting, if not ignoring any, facts dooms their decisions to not be credible.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
Will passports now say Sex or Sex at Birth? If the former, then it is not a simple statement of fact.
Somewhat reminds me of the purposely obtuse argument against recognizing a right to gay marriage... "gays have the same right as everyone else to marry the opposite sex." Hence, what's the problem, there's no discrimination! Works wonderfully here when you can just refuse to acknowledge that trans people exist.
Thank you for covering this so thoroughly and so well. This decision has evaded the alt news radar. It's unfortunate because it's not just a transgender issue which by itself is important enough, but it's also a case in point regarding the dysfunction and irresponsibility of the Supreme Court's conservative majority.
Thank you, Steve, for explaining the unfathomable cruelty and indifference of the court to real world repercussions on human beings. Right up there with the “Kavanaugh stop.” I guess the “government” is irreparably harmed if it can’t exercise some more performative cruelty.
I feel like more should be made of John Sauer's role in all of this, in terms of consistently questioning all constitutional interpretation in ways that encourage black-and-white decision-making in all cases the lower courts may visit, not based on merit but on what the president thinks is unfair to him, thus removing the relevance of merit in almost any case that might be related in the future. It's gradually removing merit from the whole scope of the bill of rights, which cannot be justified by floodgates arguments anymore, or ignored. It's completely hamstringing the role of the lower court as a competent fact-finder. Neither is in the service of protecting the Constitution.
I just renewed my passport. The application asked for my hair color (despite the color picture). I debated continuing to use "brown" since that's what the last one said, but decided "gray" was more currently accurate. However, by the court's ruling, I suppose I should have put "blonde", since that was my hair color at birth. Their ruling makes as much sense as that. Given that passports are used in part as identification, it is absurd to require data that doesn't describe the current person.
Why what possible harm could befall American citizens holding passports bearing evidence of gender fluidity etc if, for instance, local law requires that they immediately suffer the tortures of the damned. (What could go wrong?)
Why yes, it’s just like if the government required you to put down there on the passport “born a negro slave.” What’s the harm? Just an historical fact.
Keep the excellent analysis coming. Thank you for these extraordinary efforts.
Because my daughter is transgender, today my heart ached for the lack of humanity she is afforded by these despicable creatures. And I wrote to her: I share this piece on the despicable morally and legally bankrupt SCOTUS6 decision today not to rub salt in the wounds but to underscore for you that there are far more of us than there are of those 6 POS, even if you add in their enablers and supporters. Far more of us here and everywhere. Never forget that. In the long and fruitful and wonderful life you deserve and will lead there will be a day when they will be no more than a dark stain of an asterisk, their names to live forever in infamy and disgrace as an affront to the honorable and good among us.
The second sentence in that paragraph is no better than the one you highlighted. What is the purpose of the administration’s policy, beyond a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group? Tellingly, the majority doesn’t even attempt to say what it might be — because, of course, there is no other purpose for listing a passport holder’s sex at birth. What an utterly shameful and lawless ruling.
Forget about irreparable harm and balancing the equities. I wonder when Steve will start admitting that the SCOTUS-6 granted Trump emergency relief in this case because it advanced their extreme right wing policy preferences supporting an imperial Presidency to get rid of liberal legislation and Christian nationalism with its concomitant hatred of and discrimination against LGBT persons. Look out, Obergefel!
What vile, hateful, odious “people” these justices are. Also pretty ignorant since there is no sexual identity available at conception. Just some random cells. If they had said “at birth” they would at least have some argument (still not good) for the position. I didn’t think my disgust towards the SCOTUS6 could get any deeper, but they managed to prove me wrong again.
The Supreme Court ignoring extensive fact finding by lower courts is, to me, the most worrisome, now long-term, trend. Shelby stood out, for me, in this regard, And I fear the upcoming case dealing with Section 2 of the VRA will suffer similarly. To me, this deficiency, in particular, is why support for the court has collapsed - not [as so many defenders of the court contend] the decisions (ends), but the means falling so very far short of the best practices of jurisprudence established over centuries. All judges have to work with are facts and reason. Limiting, if not ignoring any, facts dooms their decisions to not be credible.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
Will passports now say Sex or Sex at Birth? If the former, then it is not a simple statement of fact.
Thanks for weighing in quickly on this decision. The equities are way out of balance, again!
Somewhat reminds me of the purposely obtuse argument against recognizing a right to gay marriage... "gays have the same right as everyone else to marry the opposite sex." Hence, what's the problem, there's no discrimination! Works wonderfully here when you can just refuse to acknowledge that trans people exist.
Thank you for covering this so thoroughly and so well. This decision has evaded the alt news radar. It's unfortunate because it's not just a transgender issue which by itself is important enough, but it's also a case in point regarding the dysfunction and irresponsibility of the Supreme Court's conservative majority.
Thank you Steve
Alito. Animus.
Thank you, Steve, for explaining the unfathomable cruelty and indifference of the court to real world repercussions on human beings. Right up there with the “Kavanaugh stop.” I guess the “government” is irreparably harmed if it can’t exercise some more performative cruelty.
I feel like more should be made of John Sauer's role in all of this, in terms of consistently questioning all constitutional interpretation in ways that encourage black-and-white decision-making in all cases the lower courts may visit, not based on merit but on what the president thinks is unfair to him, thus removing the relevance of merit in almost any case that might be related in the future. It's gradually removing merit from the whole scope of the bill of rights, which cannot be justified by floodgates arguments anymore, or ignored. It's completely hamstringing the role of the lower court as a competent fact-finder. Neither is in the service of protecting the Constitution.