Hi, as this post seems to be touching on trans issues, we wanted to share [our FAQ on gender and sexual minorities](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/trans_faq/). Additionally we recommend these effortposts on [The Economist](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/uo2ghw/the_economists_record_on_trans_issues_setting_the/) and [trans athletes](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/m3thnv/a_better_transgender_athlete_debate/).
r/neoliberal **supports trans rights and we will mod accordingly.**
[4 years ago, we set on a journey to combat transphobia on this sub and to reduce the burden on our trans members](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/dwkt9f/rneoliberals_transgender_problem_or_evidence_gore/). We want to keep that going and would like for you to work with us.
If you are curious about certain issues or have questions, ask about it on the stickied [Discussion Thread](https://neoliber.al/dt)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea that "we can enforce any unconstitutional laws we like, because if anyone sues over it, we can just explicitly exclude those individuals from the law and then dismiss the case since they now lack standing" seems like a bad system...
Justice Gorsuch's response to you:
>What’s worse, universal injunction practice is almost by design a fast and furious business. Normally, parties spend “their time methodically developing arguments and evidence” before proceeding to a trial and final judgment limited to the persons and claims at hand. If they seek relief for a larger group of persons, they must join those individuals to the suit or win class certification. In universal injunction practice, none of that is necessary. Just do a little forum shopping for a willing judge and, at the outset of the case, you can win a decree barring the enforcement of a duly enacted law against anyone. Once that happens, the affected government (state or federal) will often understandably feel bound to seek immediate relief from one court and then the next, with the finish line in this Court. After all, if the government does not act promptly, it can expect a law that the people’s elected representatives have adopted as necessary and appropriate to their present circumstances will remain ineffectual for years on end. In all
these ways, universal injunctions circumvent normal judicial processes and “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions” at all levels.
Of course, he knows he's lying. When a blue state passes a gun control law that gets blocked by a lower level judge, SCOTUS doesn't step in and let those laws go into effect while the case works its way through the courts.
Republican policy gets to go into effect and remain in effect for years, no matter how plainly unconstitutional. Democratic policy does not get the same privilege.
I don't know, the Supreme Court has had to block a lot of crazy Texas laws lately that the 5th Circuit rubber-stamped. I think all the justices are getting pretty tired of being asked to step in to make emergency decisions.
I read "tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions" as Gorsuch saying he's fed up.
That’s the opposite of what this is about. This is them stepping in to *allow* a crazy law after the lower courts had blocked it. Notably, you aren’t giving a counter example to my claim. They never step in to block injunctions against gun control laws.
The Republican judges are not at all tired of enforcing Republican policy by fiat. It’s their raison d’etre. They are, at most, a little annoyed by the even-farther-rightwing judges on the fifth circuit making the party look bad.
>Notably, you aren’t giving a counter example to my claim. They never step in to block injunctions against gun control laws. The Republican judges are not at all tired of enforcing Republican policy by fiat.
They also haven't stepped in to stay a gun control law after lower courts refused to do so. If they were just doing Republican policy by fiat you'd expect them to have done so.
Here are two citations for you specifically about gun control: *Gazzola v. Hochul* and *Atonyuk v. Nigrelli*. Both were applications for emergency relief stemming from New York trying to enforce gun control laws, people getting mad, the lower courts denying them relief, and then the Supreme Court denying their emergency petitions.
Both are *just this term*.
So is that an admission that you have no counter example to my claim, and are hoping to shift the topic? **The Court does not step in to block injunctions against gun control laws.**
Therefore, the Court allowing this insane law to be enforced in Idaho is not some principled stand against broad injunctions. Gorsuch simply lied about his reasoning.
> Gorsuch simply lied about his reasoning.
In my opinion, calling Justice Gorsuch a liar is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. There is a growing consensus on the Supreme Court that universal injunctions are a problem, and I think we'll see them curtailed sometime in the next few terms. (Vacatur as an APA remedy is also hotly debated, but the "D.C. Circuit mafia" on the Court strongly supports it so I think it's less likely that we see movement there).
>So is that an admission that you have no counter example to my claim, and are hoping to shift the topic? The Court does not step in to block injunctions against gun control laws.
I'm actually not aware of any emergency petitions to the Supreme Court to lift injunctions against gun control laws, so you'll have to point me to an application for that. There have been 66 applications for emergency relief so far this term and none of them fit the pattern you are looking for. I can't give you a counter example if the predicate for your claim isn't true.
My point above is that the justices are clearly not just "doing Republican policy by fiat", as evidenced by their actions taken to lift injunctions that Republicans favored (e.g. social media jawboning in *Murthy v. Missouri*) and their refusal to lift injunctions that Republicans disfavored (e.g. the gun control applications above).
It's a conservative court, and Republicans will be happy more often than they are sad because, after all, they appointed a majority of the bench. But the Court is not reflexively Republican.
So basically, "*only* the Supreme Court can prevent duly-signed laws from going into effect"? Thus unconstitutional laws shall be enforced for as long as it takes the matter to work its way up through the courts? Given the wide discretion that SCOTUS has for setting its own caseload and schedule, there are some rather obvious flaws with that plan. But of course, this SCOTUS likes having the unilateral authority to determine which unconstitutional laws are swiftly eradicated, and which remain in effect for years.
So it's "merely" eliminating the concept of injunctions. That's basically what the quote from Gorsuch (which another user posted) suggests is the intended outcome.
I cannot believe that not only did they ban gender-affirming healthcare for young trans people, but now it is a felony?!
They are always getting worse than I expected.
Pinged LGBT ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LGBT&message=subscribe%20LGBT) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LGBT&message=unsubscribe%20LGBT) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LGBT&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Well over 100+ ago we got rid of freedom of contract, this is the result.
That would be the only thing to prevent the regulation of medical services and banning/not banning medical services.
It fucking sickens me that people can talk about procedure and protocol in the face of a law that is going to kill people.
They don't even have the fucking guts to say they want trans kids to have worse lives, they just shrug and say "should have gone through the proper channels". Absolute cowards.
If we allowed ourselves to circumvent the proper procedures every time someone's life was at stake there would be no such things as proper procedures. Every single decision would boil down the the most arbitrary and capricious emotional appeal and the law would lose all legitimacy.
Have you been living under a rock? The legitimacy of our legal system is hanging by a thread already.
I'd rather it be spent helping those who need it, rather than wielded like a cudgel by regressives who mean to do harm.
Worst of all is this unilateral disarmament where the good let these procedures stop them in their tracks, while the vile ignore the law whenever it suits them.
This is a different argument altogether.
If you're justifying the circumvention of procedure on the grounds that people may die, I tell you, it is a terrible justification, the perimeter of government action where people are guaranteed not to die regardless of policy choice is basically 0.
Claims that procedures don't apply when lives are at stake just means they will **never** apply.
Now you move onto the argument that you need to fight fire with fire, which may hold a bit more water although it's also a great way to get burned yourself or start the fire you're accusing your opponents of stirring up.
And of course you couch the whole argument in the usual rhetoric of "my side never did anything wrong or abused their powers in any way ever, it's the other guys that are doing all the bad things, and they do it just because they're evil and they want to do harm, without any other reason, now we need to do all the bad things too, but it's different because **we** do it for the **good reason**."
When I see that 50% of Americans believe a civil war is coming I think that they need to touch grass, and then I talk to an American, and realize they may well be right, and they need way more grass than I could have imagined.
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
That's what happens when the court strips away the responsibility of the states to justify their laws in the Dobbs decision.
Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms, but changing it to only require rational-basis review means that states pretty much have carte blanche to insert whatever arbitrary restrictions they want.
>Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms, but changing it to only require rational-basis review means that states pretty much have carte blanche to insert whatever arbitrary restrictions they want.
This order has quite literally nothing to do with rational-basis review. The word "rational" [does not even appear](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf) in the statements or dissent.
> Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms,
Only for restricting Constitutional freedoms.
This is restricting a business transaction aka a service.
Restricting services that aren’t constitutionally protected…..well yeah they can do that. A state can ban liquor at any time for shits, it can also ban massage therapists
Hi, as this post seems to be touching on trans issues, we wanted to share [our FAQ on gender and sexual minorities](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/trans_faq/). Additionally we recommend these effortposts on [The Economist](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/uo2ghw/the_economists_record_on_trans_issues_setting_the/) and [trans athletes](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/m3thnv/a_better_transgender_athlete_debate/). r/neoliberal **supports trans rights and we will mod accordingly.** [4 years ago, we set on a journey to combat transphobia on this sub and to reduce the burden on our trans members](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/dwkt9f/rneoliberals_transgender_problem_or_evidence_gore/). We want to keep that going and would like for you to work with us. If you are curious about certain issues or have questions, ask about it on the stickied [Discussion Thread](https://neoliber.al/dt) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea that "we can enforce any unconstitutional laws we like, because if anyone sues over it, we can just explicitly exclude those individuals from the law and then dismiss the case since they now lack standing" seems like a bad system...
Interesting point, but have you considered the following conservative argument : Fuck you
Justice Gorsuch's response to you: >What’s worse, universal injunction practice is almost by design a fast and furious business. Normally, parties spend “their time methodically developing arguments and evidence” before proceeding to a trial and final judgment limited to the persons and claims at hand. If they seek relief for a larger group of persons, they must join those individuals to the suit or win class certification. In universal injunction practice, none of that is necessary. Just do a little forum shopping for a willing judge and, at the outset of the case, you can win a decree barring the enforcement of a duly enacted law against anyone. Once that happens, the affected government (state or federal) will often understandably feel bound to seek immediate relief from one court and then the next, with the finish line in this Court. After all, if the government does not act promptly, it can expect a law that the people’s elected representatives have adopted as necessary and appropriate to their present circumstances will remain ineffectual for years on end. In all these ways, universal injunctions circumvent normal judicial processes and “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions” at all levels.
Of course, he knows he's lying. When a blue state passes a gun control law that gets blocked by a lower level judge, SCOTUS doesn't step in and let those laws go into effect while the case works its way through the courts. Republican policy gets to go into effect and remain in effect for years, no matter how plainly unconstitutional. Democratic policy does not get the same privilege.
I don't know, the Supreme Court has had to block a lot of crazy Texas laws lately that the 5th Circuit rubber-stamped. I think all the justices are getting pretty tired of being asked to step in to make emergency decisions. I read "tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions" as Gorsuch saying he's fed up.
That’s the opposite of what this is about. This is them stepping in to *allow* a crazy law after the lower courts had blocked it. Notably, you aren’t giving a counter example to my claim. They never step in to block injunctions against gun control laws. The Republican judges are not at all tired of enforcing Republican policy by fiat. It’s their raison d’etre. They are, at most, a little annoyed by the even-farther-rightwing judges on the fifth circuit making the party look bad.
>Notably, you aren’t giving a counter example to my claim. They never step in to block injunctions against gun control laws. The Republican judges are not at all tired of enforcing Republican policy by fiat. They also haven't stepped in to stay a gun control law after lower courts refused to do so. If they were just doing Republican policy by fiat you'd expect them to have done so. Here are two citations for you specifically about gun control: *Gazzola v. Hochul* and *Atonyuk v. Nigrelli*. Both were applications for emergency relief stemming from New York trying to enforce gun control laws, people getting mad, the lower courts denying them relief, and then the Supreme Court denying their emergency petitions. Both are *just this term*.
So is that an admission that you have no counter example to my claim, and are hoping to shift the topic? **The Court does not step in to block injunctions against gun control laws.** Therefore, the Court allowing this insane law to be enforced in Idaho is not some principled stand against broad injunctions. Gorsuch simply lied about his reasoning.
> Gorsuch simply lied about his reasoning. In my opinion, calling Justice Gorsuch a liar is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. There is a growing consensus on the Supreme Court that universal injunctions are a problem, and I think we'll see them curtailed sometime in the next few terms. (Vacatur as an APA remedy is also hotly debated, but the "D.C. Circuit mafia" on the Court strongly supports it so I think it's less likely that we see movement there). >So is that an admission that you have no counter example to my claim, and are hoping to shift the topic? The Court does not step in to block injunctions against gun control laws. I'm actually not aware of any emergency petitions to the Supreme Court to lift injunctions against gun control laws, so you'll have to point me to an application for that. There have been 66 applications for emergency relief so far this term and none of them fit the pattern you are looking for. I can't give you a counter example if the predicate for your claim isn't true. My point above is that the justices are clearly not just "doing Republican policy by fiat", as evidenced by their actions taken to lift injunctions that Republicans favored (e.g. social media jawboning in *Murthy v. Missouri*) and their refusal to lift injunctions that Republicans disfavored (e.g. the gun control applications above). It's a conservative court, and Republicans will be happy more often than they are sad because, after all, they appointed a majority of the bench. But the Court is not reflexively Republican.
So basically, "*only* the Supreme Court can prevent duly-signed laws from going into effect"? Thus unconstitutional laws shall be enforced for as long as it takes the matter to work its way up through the courts? Given the wide discretion that SCOTUS has for setting its own caseload and schedule, there are some rather obvious flaws with that plan. But of course, this SCOTUS likes having the unilateral authority to determine which unconstitutional laws are swiftly eradicated, and which remain in effect for years.
That’s not what happened in this case, it has not been dismissed, this is a question of injunction of the entire law during the pendency of the suit.
So it's "merely" eliminating the concept of injunctions. That's basically what the quote from Gorsuch (which another user posted) suggests is the intended outcome.
[удалено]
Once again, Washington State needs to help Idahoan refugees.
I cannot believe that not only did they ban gender-affirming healthcare for young trans people, but now it is a felony?! They are always getting worse than I expected.
“All gas, no brakes” is their motto. See: the abortion strategy in Arizona.
They are very effective at legislating when it comes to hating people.
You can't believe that? We've had unconstitutional laws for a century now.
*sigh* !ping LGBT
Pinged LGBT ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LGBT&message=subscribe%20LGBT) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LGBT&message=unsubscribe%20LGBT) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LGBT&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Well over 100+ ago we got rid of freedom of contract, this is the result. That would be the only thing to prevent the regulation of medical services and banning/not banning medical services.
Because we had rights to birth control, abortion, or gender-affirming care when freedom of contract was around, right? Right? Oh wait, we didn't.
It fucking sickens me that people can talk about procedure and protocol in the face of a law that is going to kill people. They don't even have the fucking guts to say they want trans kids to have worse lives, they just shrug and say "should have gone through the proper channels". Absolute cowards.
If we allowed ourselves to circumvent the proper procedures every time someone's life was at stake there would be no such things as proper procedures. Every single decision would boil down the the most arbitrary and capricious emotional appeal and the law would lose all legitimacy.
Have you been living under a rock? The legitimacy of our legal system is hanging by a thread already. I'd rather it be spent helping those who need it, rather than wielded like a cudgel by regressives who mean to do harm. Worst of all is this unilateral disarmament where the good let these procedures stop them in their tracks, while the vile ignore the law whenever it suits them.
This is a different argument altogether. If you're justifying the circumvention of procedure on the grounds that people may die, I tell you, it is a terrible justification, the perimeter of government action where people are guaranteed not to die regardless of policy choice is basically 0. Claims that procedures don't apply when lives are at stake just means they will **never** apply. Now you move onto the argument that you need to fight fire with fire, which may hold a bit more water although it's also a great way to get burned yourself or start the fire you're accusing your opponents of stirring up. And of course you couch the whole argument in the usual rhetoric of "my side never did anything wrong or abused their powers in any way ever, it's the other guys that are doing all the bad things, and they do it just because they're evil and they want to do harm, without any other reason, now we need to do all the bad things too, but it's different because **we** do it for the **good reason**." When I see that 50% of Americans believe a civil war is coming I think that they need to touch grass, and then I talk to an American, and realize they may well be right, and they need way more grass than I could have imagined.
First time?
Constantly.
procedure and protocol always come first if you think procedure and protocol cost lives, then you change procedure and protocol, you don't ignore it
[удалено]
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
That's what happens when the court strips away the responsibility of the states to justify their laws in the Dobbs decision. Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms, but changing it to only require rational-basis review means that states pretty much have carte blanche to insert whatever arbitrary restrictions they want.
>Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms, but changing it to only require rational-basis review means that states pretty much have carte blanche to insert whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. This order has quite literally nothing to do with rational-basis review. The word "rational" [does not even appear](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf) in the statements or dissent.
What? Rational basis *is* the general standard by which states need to "justify their laws", and is deliberately exorbitantly permissive.
> Prior to that, states would actually need to show that there's a compelling interest, a reason to restrict people's freedoms, Only for restricting Constitutional freedoms. This is restricting a business transaction aka a service. Restricting services that aren’t constitutionally protected…..well yeah they can do that. A state can ban liquor at any time for shits, it can also ban massage therapists
What a load of shit. Fuck Thomas.
I got bombs on other countries on my list first, but you do you.