[Gov.] Abbott’s order... directed state officials to consider medically accepted treatments for transgender youth — including hormones and puberty-suppressing drugs — as abuse.... [Judge Amy Clark Meachum in Travis County held that to] “violate separation of powers by impermissibly encroaching into the legislative domain.”
“The act’s emphatic, unambiguous and repeated provisions” declare that a private civil action is the “exclusive” method for enforcing the law, the justices wrote.
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
I cannot fathom why people would think more lawsuits and more lawyers is a good idea.
Now the progs are just going to use this same tactic against everything you people love.
This is short sighted and stupid.
Is there any hope the SCOTUS will similarly restrain White House executive orders? As I recall Trump attempted a shutdown of several Obama EOs and got shot down by various Clinton and Obama judicial appointees.
The treatment of some parents of these children allegedly "transgender" has been nothing less than Medieval. The Inquisition was no more oppressive. In one case a father lost custody of his five year old when a judge empowered his ex-wife (NOT the child's mother) to start drugs to prevent the little boy's puberty and inject him with estrogens. The father appeared at a Texas college to speak at the invitation of a student group and was shouted down by "activists."
Giving legislatures an end-run around legal challenges (as in Texas abortion case) seems ripe for problematic outcomes.
These issues are precisely the kind of issues that should be decided by the peoples’ representatives. Some issues are just not clear and require debate, compromise, and adjustment after experience. None of that is available under judicial edict. These moves in Texas are a step in the right direction if we want a government of the people and by the people.
Re: item #2.
Now, ask yourself why racial restrictions in deeds are unenforceable. Hint: They were unenforceable before the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, or other similar federal statutes.
The legal battle is far from over. Expect more litigation, though a new lawsuit based upon a newly claimed controversy may be necessary.
Mark said...
Giving legislatures an end-run around legal challenges (as in Texas abortion case) seems ripe for problematic outcomes.
This seems obvious right?
When this is used on Churches for not allowing gay priests and on businesses for not saying the right pronouns and all gun companies in general you all are going to get the sadz.
I have no doubt that this year's elections in Texas these cases will be campaigned on. I have no doubt that the next Texas legislature and governor will pass the legislation needed. My magic eight ball tells me Breyer won't resign since Biden isn't going to get a replacement. But then again, I have been known to be wrong before.
Do they have an obligation to enforce murder laws? Robbery?
Of just the laws that liberals don't like...
As for trans kids...if it's such a great thing that should be celebrated, lets' pass a law that mandates every child transitions.
It's a good thing, right?
In 2 big cases, Texas courts defer to the legislature.
1. "Texas Court Halts Abuse Inquiries Into Parents of Transgender Children/A judge said the governor’s order to consider medically accepted treatments for transgender youth as abuse had been improperly adopted and violated the State Constitution" (NYT).
[Gov.] Abbott’s order... directed state officials to consider medically accepted treatments for transgender youth — including hormones and puberty-suppressing drugs — as abuse.... [Judge Amy Clark Meachum in Travis County held that to] “violate separation of powers by impermissibly encroaching into the legislative domain.”
She didn't "defer to the Legislature", she imposed her own personal beliefs while feeding out a word salad of BS.
Abbots order is a regulatory action, just like Biden's order that health care companies getting Medicare payments had to fire any employee who didn't get the Covid shots.
SCOTUS let that one go.
Oh, and let's be clear: blocking puberty, either with chemical castration or physical castration, IS abuse.
The only thing that it being "medically accepted" means is that there's far too many medical personal who are horrible human beings
Achilles said...
Mark said...
Giving legislatures an end-run around legal challenges (as in Texas abortion case) seems ripe for problematic outcomes.
This seems obvious right?
When this is used on Churches for not allowing gay priests and on businesses for not saying the right pronouns and all gun companies in general you all are going to get the sadz.
1: Already being done, especially on guns
2: The law only matter because everyone expect Roe to be tossed, like it should be, later this year.
If people thought Roe would be upheld, the law would provide no threat.
You ignoramuses should try learning what you're talking abotu before you shoot your mouths off
I have the impression that the goal of these actions by the Texas legislature is to get people to stop and think about these things rather than create possibly unconstitutional laws to ban the activities. Abortions are down as far as the official total number is concerned but is that because women are not getting abortions or because they are being more careful not to get pregnant or because they are going out of state? Has any private citizen sued any woman for getting an abortion? I haven't done any research on that but I think it's fair to assume that we'd hear about it in the media if it happens.
Likewise, no one has had their transgender child removed for being in medical treatment for that condition. But perhaps some parents are thinking about it differently knowing that many people are seriously questioning the wisdom of permanently sterilizing children because of a discomfort that 80% of children with this gender confusion grow out of.
Don't waste your time on Travis County rulings. It is a thoroughly partisan and political activist court.
Just checked the product information sheets for the two main puberty blockers. Neither of the list the treatment of gender dysphoria as an indication for their use.
It's child abuse. Let the kid make THAT kind of decision when they come of age. Before then, it is child abuse.
I am not a lawyer but I've seen a couple of analysis (Josh Blackman was one) of the USSC and TXSC opinions that indicate what's stopping are the pre-enforcement, and therefore purely theoretical, challenges which is why the case revolved around whether Texas officials will enforce SB8. There will still be challenges when an actual suit is brought under SB8.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा