• hector@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    That would clearly be unconstitutional. Not that I trust the courts to recognize that fact at this moment in time. I suspect they cite some technicality to prevent it from being stopped completely while calling it unconstitutional.

    I do not think the Federal district judges can even stop it now with the ban on Nationwide injunctions, I do not know how that would work in this case.

    That was perhaps the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made arguably. It will become clear in time just how bad of a decision that was.

    • aurelar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      The people in favor of this law would probably try to file it under the mental illness category instead of using the simple fact that they’re transgender.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        That could be a tough sell for them now, to call everybody transgender mentally ill as a matter of course. The next logical step would be declaring all gay people mentally ill, then anyone with a fetish that is not very widespread, and so on.

        The gun rights people have been tooled to support Republicans with slippery slope arguments. I do not think they would support this at this moment in time. The administration is testing the waters.

        • aurelar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          They always seem to be testing the waters. Razvedka boyem is standard operating practice for Trump and his ilk.