 |
| The Supreme Court will once again set the stage for another ugly civil war in the United States. |
From reading books on LGBTQ Americans to adult entertainment, the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the white people who have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives.
A civil war is coming.
There will be a violent uprising in the United States again. Trust me, I see it coming.
It first starts with Americans refusing to pay their taxes.
Then the government starts cracking down on dissent and free speech.
The government becomes unison in conflicts which involve regime change and unprecedented war crimes.
Then they start arresting critics, opposing lawmakers and people filming the public.
What Israel and the United States are doing is the inevitable demise of the two.
President Donald J. Trump is definitely a symbol of decline.
Religion is the cause of war, hate, instability, inequality and division.
If the world never believed in religion, the planet would likely advance in the future.
John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan and Kentaji Brown Jackson are out of touch with the public.
President Donald J. Trump has a job approval of 36%.
Vice President JD Vance has a job approval of 45%.
The Supreme Court has a job approval of 24%.
Congress has a job approval of 22%.
Republicans are favored 42%.
Democrats are favored 39%.
Americans believe we are on the wrong track.
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at restricting young people’s access to pornographic content online.
The justices in a 6-3 vote rejected a challenge brought by a pornography interest group called the Free Speech Coalition that said the measure violates the free speech rights of adults who want to access the content.
The law requires users of websites that host adult content to verify their age before they can access it. This requires the operator to view a government-issued identification, such as a driver’s license.
The law "simply requires established verification methods already in use by pornographic sites and other industries," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
It also "advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit material," he added.
The challengers argued the law violates the Constitution’s First Amendment because it places a “content-based burden” on adults’ access to speech.
They cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that found a federal law also aimed at restricting access to pornography, called the Child Online Protection Act, was most likely unconstitutional.
 |
| The Supreme Court is now a fucking big government nanny. |
This can seriously be the end of Fansly, OnlyFans, XVideo, XHamster, PornHub and every platform that caters to adult entertainment. This decision should be in the hands of parents not some fucking bureaucrat or an out of touch jurist.
The John Roberts Court will have a few victories for progress but overall, it will be ranked one of the worst. This court will be ranked as bad as the Roger Taney Court.
A federal judge had ruled that the provision at issue was problematic because it did not merely restrict access to minors.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled for Texas and refused to put its ruling on hold pending further review.
As a result of that ruling, some online pornography platforms, including Pornhub, prevented people in Texas from accessing their sites out of concern about the provision’s going into effect.
The Supreme Court in April 2024 declined to block the law while the case continued.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors, delivering a major blow to transgender rights.
The 6-3 ruling is likely to have a broad impact as 24 other states have already enacted laws similar to the one in Tennessee, which bars gender transition surgery, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for youth.
Those laws now look set to survive similar legal challenges. The ruling does not affect states that do not have such bans, meaning care in those states will still be available.
The court was divided on ideological lines, with the six conservatives in the majority and the three liberals in dissent.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Tennessee law does not constitute a form of sex discrimination that would violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound."
"The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements," he added.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion that contrary to the majority's conclusion, the law does discriminate based on both sex and transgender status and should therefore be analyzed closely.
"By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims," she wrote. "In sadness, I dissent."
Sotomayor also took the relatively unusual step of reading a summary of her decision from the bench in court, saying the impact of the decision is "incredibly dangerous."
Trans rights activists have warned that a ruling allowing bans on care for trans minors could pave the way for similar restrictions aimed at adults.
"Today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution," Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the challengers, said in a statement.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the decision as a win for "common sense over judicial activism."
He added that legislators should give "careful scrutiny" before allowing such treatments, making judgments "based on science, not ideology."
The legal challenge was brought by the administration of former President Joe Biden, as well as transgender teens and their families.
Can't wait until these Republican lawmakers get outed by adult entertainers, women or transgender sex workers.
The ruling does not resolve all legal issues relating to the state bans, as it did not address a separate argument under the 14th Amendment that the laws violate the right of parents to make health care decisions for their children.
The court also did not rule on the question of whether laws that discriminate against transgender people are subject to what is called "heightened scrutiny," meaning that judges should review them with a skeptical eye. But three of the conservative justices said transgender people are not a "suspect class," meaning laws targeting them should not receive heightened scrutiny.
Other issues involving transgender rights, such as laws blocking transgender girls from participating in sports, are likely to reach the court in due course.
Upon taking office in January, President Donald Trump has set about unwinding Biden policies that sought to bolster transgender rights. Among other things, he signed an executive order seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for teenagers nationwide. A judge quickly blocked it.
Trump has also imposed new restrictions on transgender people serving in the military.
"President Trump will continue to speak out and take action to protect innocent American children from these barbaric procedures that are based on junk science," White House spokeswoman Liz Huston said in a statement praising the ruling.
Enacted in 2023, the Tennessee law is among a wave of similar measures taken by states imposing restrictions on gender transition treatments. In defending its ban, the state's lawyers pointed to similar measures taken in other countries, including in Europe.
Skrmetti emphasized in court papers the evolving debate over how best to treat minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the clinical term given to the distress people can experience when their gender identities are in conflict with the genders assigned to them at birth.
Major medical organizations say gender-affirming treatments are an effective way to treat gender dysphoria.
"Let us be clear — healthcare bans of any kind are rooted in stigma, misinformation, and fear and this one comes at the expense of the youth in need of this care," the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and its United States affiliate, said in a statement.
The challengers argued that the law is a form of sex discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because the treatments at issue in the case — puberty blockers and hormone therapy — can be used in other situations.
The case marks the most significant ruling on transgender rights since the court in 2020, to the surprise of many, ruled that federal employment protections extend to gender identity, as well as sexual orientation.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 rejected challenges to the Tennessee law and a similar measure in Kentucky.
A district court judge had blocked parts of the law, while concluding that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban. That provision of the law was not at issue before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on Friday bolstered religious rights as it ruled in favor of parents who objected to LGBTQ-themed books that a Maryland county approved for use in elementary school classrooms.
In a 6-3 vote, the court backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out option for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects religious expression.
"The board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+ inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented.
"The result will be chaos for this nation's public schools," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.
"Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parents' beliefs," she added.
The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum.
The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area.
Approved books include “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which features a gay character who is getting married, and “Born Ready,” about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.
The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.
Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement.
Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths.
They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights.
The Trump administration backed the challengers.
A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.
The Supreme Court has in the past backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In one recent ruling, the court in 2023 ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
No comments:
Post a Comment