it's irritating to see people argue against women in women's sports and claim they are not transphobic, but they won't even research their own arguments
the only argument is "they have biological advantages", except what is that based on? Gut feel?
there are many articles on trans women winning, but they never talk about dozens of competitions those same trans women have lost
if women aren't allowed to win, then what's the point of competing?
and allowing trans women to participate only if they've transitioned before age 12 is literally banning them, because trans women can't even get blockers until age 13 in the best of the cases
it's just giving the oblivious "allies" just enough to make them back off while actually maintaining the ban for trans women to participate
@Memor-X you gotta start puberty first and then you have to have very supportive parents and not live in a state/country that's transphobic as fuck (do those exist anymore?)
giving puberty blockers to trans kids is still relatively new, so it pretty much eliminates majority of adult trans women
@MadScientist twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1540339367310401538 Worst part is that they're ALSO now saying they are willing to reconsider a bunch of other "due process" precedents like those that legalized contraceptives, sodomy and gay marriage
Can Democrats just start packing that fucking court already
Because the current makeup of the court is so horribly out of touch
@Elise What is it based on? I'm sorry I guess I can't really have a discussion if the fact that being born male gives you clear biological advantages is not a common-ground. whether or not those advantages can be reversed in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or at all, is something I can't be sure of and something I have realized that I don't have enough education on. I'm willing to be wrong on that, but not if its not recognized that there's at least potential for a problem to begin with
@MadScientist But on to this shit, what an absolute shame, honestly
The only solace is that it being up to the states now doesn't mean sweeping legislation for the whole country, but its garbage for those who happen to live in a red state :(
> As far as I can tell, the Court's opinion in Dobbs is substantively -- and almost word-for-word -- identical to the leaked Alito draft, but for correcting a couple of typos and adding the clause "is part of a broader entrenched right that" on page 9.
> Yes, the court's majority opinion in Dobbs kept intact the bizarre (and unnecessary) citations to Matthew Hale, the 17th-century jurist who believed that women didn't have rights.
> The stuff replying to the dissent is also new; see pp. 35-38
(that's the pages with printed number 35-38, which starts on page 43 in the PDF)
> As is the stuff replying to the dissent and Roberts's concurrence on stare decisis from pp. 69-77.
So, if the leak was from the conservative side, in an effort to get any conservative holdouts on board, and to ensure that the final opinion didn't differ from the early draft, then yep; looks like it worked.
Also, don't forget the rapist, federalist and Handmaiden that Darth Cheeto installed didn't just roll back abortion rights by 5 decades. They also effectively removed Miranda Rights, Gun Control, separation of Church and State all in the past week
(And I don't like gun control so that's something I'd be happy about, but not the others)
Darth Cheeto! It took me a few seconds to realize who you meant. That's the best name ever.
> (CNN)The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
Oh. That's not as bad (still bad though). Qualified immunity has always been too powerful.
That just means that they can't be sued, not that the Miranda warning is gone.
@Nzall Fun fact: Police also can't be sued even if they mistakenly arrest you because they mistake you for someone else, beat you to a pulp, and violate almost every other right. Because... qualified immunity.
@forest Yeah, but it also means that the only recourse for a Miranda Rights violation is by attempting to suppress the violating evidence, which is not a guaranteed solution
@Nzall That's what matters the most. I'd rather that be preserved than that be overturned and lawsuits preserved.
Given that you pretty much can't sue cops period, this isn't too much of a loss.
I mean seriously, qualified immunity is horrific. I read about a case where a cop tried to stop a fight between two kids, so he shot randomly at someone he saw behind a bush (turns out it was a little girl) simply because he saw someone move. Yes, she died. Yes, the two kids who were fighting were convicted of felony murder for the cop's shooting of the little girl (because if a cop shoots someone while he's responding to a crime you're committing, you're guilty of murder, not the cop).
And, of course, qualified immunity protected the cop from being sued by the family of the little girl.
That, @Nzall, is why qualified immunity is such a problem. The fact that SCOTUS says you can't sue cops for not reading you your warning is trivial in comparison, and honestly not something that surprises me at all given that cops simply can't be sued.
And any news report you hear about a successful lawsuit is actually a suit against the city or state, not the individual cops themselves. So it's the taxpayers who pay the damages for a successful lawsuit against police, not the individual cops themselves. The cops stay on payroll.
