As we enter the three key weeks of the Supreme Court's term, a guide to what's still left to be decided, what to expect, and some of the broader takeaways.
trannie isn't a slur, any more than black is a slur, but calling a member an insulting name such as an "ignorant bigot" should have zero tolerance. Letting you comment anonymously was always a mistake, imho
Merriam-Webster considers it a slur (1), so if you don't intend it to be taken as a slur, it's best to avoid it.
On the other hand, a few months ago I used the term "trans-identifying man" instead of "trans woman" in a comment to another reader, explaining that I didn't believe that humans can actually change their sex, though (as I said then) I think that transgender people should be respected as individuals and shouldn't be discriminated against in employment (for example). In response, the other reader called me a "contemptible worm" and said that my comments should be suppressed. That's sadly typical of the reaction one gets these days.
John, I think you are wrong. I lived in a gay/transvestite community, where the trannies always called themselves trannies, not transvestites nor transgender persons. It's ungood for you to use MWebster for a 1984, pretending moral high ground. Imho, MW could correctly note that it is *sometimes* used derogatorily. But MW is likely ignorant. Some people call others "ignorant bigots", and that is always intended to cause harm, always derogatory. I'm telling you that you appear ignorant of actual usage by actual trannies, but I'm not hurling insults to pretend moral authority.
The thing is, we all live in a trannie community. And the problem is the social apartheid that encourages some to pretend it is ethical to segregate. Everybody who doesn't want to be part of a social forum where people are allowed to continuously hurl personal attacks against other members, please raise your hands. You are identifying the root problem -- hate speech -- the same one that got Trump elected and his SCOTUS nominees confirmed. That root problem is the people who didn't raise their hands.
I admit that I don't know how transgender people refer to themselves, or even if there's a common term they use, but I don't think you're right to dismiss Merriam-Webster's judgment.
I don't support ad hominem remarks and insults, and I try hard to avoid them when commenting online. Their prevalence is one of the things that makes discussions so difficult these days. But to be clear, I would never call for the person who called me a "contemptible worm", or for "No One", who called you an ignorant bigot, to be banned from this site or for their comments to be removed. I just wish that people would be more civil.
Your comment illustrates one reason why the transgender movement failed to persuade (or even alienated) many people -- you take an entirely one-sided view, never even acknowledging the concerns of others.
For example, the owners and female customers of Olympus Spa (1) didn't want to share the nude bathing area with naked "trans women" (men who identity was women), for obvious reasons. The typical approach of calling anyone who has concerns a bigot is unjustified and will never win over anyone.
It also makes your argument less compelling when you use universal statements such as "Trans people are law abiding, rule following American citizens", which is no more true of trans people than it is of any other group. You can simply say "Trans people are generally law-abiding ..." rather than using a phrasing that seems to ignore, for example, the mass murderers Aiden Hale (2), Jessie Van Rootselaar (a.k.a. Jessie Strang) in Canada (3), and Robin Westman (4).
If we ever get to the point in this country where we can have honest debates about how to weigh competing interests in such matters, it will be a great relief.
I already gave an example of concerns that you don't take into account -- the concerns of the women in the Olympus Spa after the court ruling when a naked biological male was present in the hot tub. He had fully intact male genitalia, however you might define "transition".
I didn't insist that you "handle every case". I pointed out that using universal statements like the one I mentioned reinforces the impression that you're taking an entirely one-sided point of view. You're welcome to do that, but it won't help you win anyone over.
The one-sided approach to debates is prevalent on the right and the left these day, regarding almost any "hot" political topic. It makes it impossible to have productive discussions.
I don't know if you're criticizing "No One", me, or both of us, but this whole thread illustrates the difficulty of having productive discussions about controversial topics.
Helpful but anything to do with "presidential" power or authority needs the asterisk for "Republican" Presidents. Same with other entities. The Republican justices can find a reason for removing restrictions on corporations spending unlimited money in coordination with political candidates, but they'd find reasons to restrict unions from doing so.
That's the lower court undercurrent you identified. "Remember which party appointed us and rule accordingly rather than go strictly by precedent" has been a theme this term.
These judges are acting like they are kings. And they must go. Their malfeasance has broken our democracy and is the pool of putrid filth from which the murderer, rapist-scum Trump draws his undue authority. Steve, you are the proof. You stand up. And you speak the truth with authority about how these judges are failing in their duty to the law, in fact ignoring the law. It's the end for them or it's the end for America. Time is up.
Steve, the transgender sports issue is not the same as the transgender bathroom case, you agree? Here in Idaho, transgenders are about to lose access to public bathrooms. Sports participation is not the same as bathroom “participation.”
Trump is able to put CNN, CBS, and HBO under one corporate-fascist umbrella because SCOTUS has become a putrid pool of filth. Trump and SCOTUS must go the Hague for America to regain it's position as leader of the genuinely free world.
This was a very useful piece by Professor Vladeck.
For those with a New York Times subscription, the link below is to their tracker for important Supreme Court cases this term. It includes polls on public opinion about the various cases.
Re Mail-in ballots—Watson v. Republican National Committee, this seems to be shaping up as another one of those Purcell-means-anything-we-say-it-means-on-any-given-day opinions. Telling states they can't set their own election rules.
Between stare decisis (violates Amdt VII) and constitutional avoidance (violates Articles V, VI, and VII, not to mention the Enacting statement) antifederalism is getting fat on our era. The House should have a word with any author of an opinion on executive actions containing no variation of, "Executive actions that initiate or alter domestic policy violate the Legislative Powers and Necessary and Proper clauses." This is a simple one. Every decision (or concurrence, ie Youngstown) that "limits" the power to legislate by fiat says it's otherwise lawful when it's categorically unlawful.
We need a SCOTUS reform that requires opinions to be issued by the end of the 2nd month after the month the Court hears the case. Delaying all these opinions until June year after year is a bad process.
Call the courts what they are: broken. That doesn't make trannies law-abiding or otherwise.
trannie isn't a slur, any more than black is a slur, but calling a member an insulting name such as an "ignorant bigot" should have zero tolerance. Letting you comment anonymously was always a mistake, imho
Continuing personal attacks on a member of this forum. ungood.
Merriam-Webster considers it a slur (1), so if you don't intend it to be taken as a slur, it's best to avoid it.
On the other hand, a few months ago I used the term "trans-identifying man" instead of "trans woman" in a comment to another reader, explaining that I didn't believe that humans can actually change their sex, though (as I said then) I think that transgender people should be respected as individuals and shouldn't be discriminated against in employment (for example). In response, the other reader called me a "contemptible worm" and said that my comments should be suppressed. That's sadly typical of the reaction one gets these days.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trannie
John, I think you are wrong. I lived in a gay/transvestite community, where the trannies always called themselves trannies, not transvestites nor transgender persons. It's ungood for you to use MWebster for a 1984, pretending moral high ground. Imho, MW could correctly note that it is *sometimes* used derogatorily. But MW is likely ignorant. Some people call others "ignorant bigots", and that is always intended to cause harm, always derogatory. I'm telling you that you appear ignorant of actual usage by actual trannies, but I'm not hurling insults to pretend moral authority.
The thing is, we all live in a trannie community. And the problem is the social apartheid that encourages some to pretend it is ethical to segregate. Everybody who doesn't want to be part of a social forum where people are allowed to continuously hurl personal attacks against other members, please raise your hands. You are identifying the root problem -- hate speech -- the same one that got Trump elected and his SCOTUS nominees confirmed. That root problem is the people who didn't raise their hands.
I admit that I don't know how transgender people refer to themselves, or even if there's a common term they use, but I don't think you're right to dismiss Merriam-Webster's judgment.
I don't support ad hominem remarks and insults, and I try hard to avoid them when commenting online. Their prevalence is one of the things that makes discussions so difficult these days. But to be clear, I would never call for the person who called me a "contemptible worm", or for "No One", who called you an ignorant bigot, to be banned from this site or for their comments to be removed. I just wish that people would be more civil.
Your comment illustrates one reason why the transgender movement failed to persuade (or even alienated) many people -- you take an entirely one-sided view, never even acknowledging the concerns of others.
For example, the owners and female customers of Olympus Spa (1) didn't want to share the nude bathing area with naked "trans women" (men who identity was women), for obvious reasons. The typical approach of calling anyone who has concerns a bigot is unjustified and will never win over anyone.
It also makes your argument less compelling when you use universal statements such as "Trans people are law abiding, rule following American citizens", which is no more true of trans people than it is of any other group. You can simply say "Trans people are generally law-abiding ..." rather than using a phrasing that seems to ignore, for example, the mass murderers Aiden Hale (2), Jessie Van Rootselaar (a.k.a. Jessie Strang) in Canada (3), and Robin Westman (4).
If we ever get to the point in this country where we can have honest debates about how to weigh competing interests in such matters, it will be a great relief.
[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/29/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-first-amendment-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-penises/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#Perpetrator
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting#Perpetrator
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting#Perpetrator
I already gave an example of concerns that you don't take into account -- the concerns of the women in the Olympus Spa after the court ruling when a naked biological male was present in the hot tub. He had fully intact male genitalia, however you might define "transition".
I didn't insist that you "handle every case". I pointed out that using universal statements like the one I mentioned reinforces the impression that you're taking an entirely one-sided point of view. You're welcome to do that, but it won't help you win anyone over.
The one-sided approach to debates is prevalent on the right and the left these day, regarding almost any "hot" political topic. It makes it impossible to have productive discussions.
^ nice illustration of pointless discussion encouraging others to step away
I don't know if you're criticizing "No One", me, or both of us, but this whole thread illustrates the difficulty of having productive discussions about controversial topics.
So helpful, Steve, as always. Thank you for all the work you put in for us non-lawyers.
Helpful but anything to do with "presidential" power or authority needs the asterisk for "Republican" Presidents. Same with other entities. The Republican justices can find a reason for removing restrictions on corporations spending unlimited money in coordination with political candidates, but they'd find reasons to restrict unions from doing so.
That's the lower court undercurrent you identified. "Remember which party appointed us and rule accordingly rather than go strictly by precedent" has been a theme this term.
We are under fascist rule, and that's asterisk is a guideline for following the fuhrer without saying "heil".
Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think Urias-Orellana v. Bondi was decided a few months ago (9-0).
Ack!! So it was. I just neglected to update my notes to cut that one out. Fixed now!
Thanks for the nudge.
A big thank you for this time consuming survey
Why is it that a Court that used to regularly issue hundreds of decisions a year down to the fifties?
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/98-why-is-the-courts-docket-shrinking
Is 58 merits cases a low number for recent years? If so, does the number of emergency/shadow docket cases explain the lower number?
Low for any term before OT2019; typical for any term since:
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/98-why-is-the-courts-docket-shrinking
TY!
These judges are acting like they are kings. And they must go. Their malfeasance has broken our democracy and is the pool of putrid filth from which the murderer, rapist-scum Trump draws his undue authority. Steve, you are the proof. You stand up. And you speak the truth with authority about how these judges are failing in their duty to the law, in fact ignoring the law. It's the end for them or it's the end for America. Time is up.
The “voting rights community”? That’s everyone who isn’t a racist right?
Steve, the transgender sports issue is not the same as the transgender bathroom case, you agree? Here in Idaho, transgenders are about to lose access to public bathrooms. Sports participation is not the same as bathroom “participation.”
Trump is able to put CNN, CBS, and HBO under one corporate-fascist umbrella because SCOTUS has become a putrid pool of filth. Trump and SCOTUS must go the Hague for America to regain it's position as leader of the genuinely free world.
This was a very useful piece by Professor Vladeck.
For those with a New York Times subscription, the link below is to their tracker for important Supreme Court cases this term. It includes polls on public opinion about the various cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/20/us/supreme-court-major-cases-2026.html#guns
Re Mail-in ballots—Watson v. Republican National Committee, this seems to be shaping up as another one of those Purcell-means-anything-we-say-it-means-on-any-given-day opinions. Telling states they can't set their own election rules.
If they really want to go out with a bang they’ll save birthright citizenship til the end, right before the Fourth.
Hi, Steve!
Between stare decisis (violates Amdt VII) and constitutional avoidance (violates Articles V, VI, and VII, not to mention the Enacting statement) antifederalism is getting fat on our era. The House should have a word with any author of an opinion on executive actions containing no variation of, "Executive actions that initiate or alter domestic policy violate the Legislative Powers and Necessary and Proper clauses." This is a simple one. Every decision (or concurrence, ie Youngstown) that "limits" the power to legislate by fiat says it's otherwise lawful when it's categorically unlawful.
We need a SCOTUS reform that requires opinions to be issued by the end of the 2nd month after the month the Court hears the case. Delaying all these opinions until June year after year is a bad process.
deadlines won't deliver better results