![]() |
| The Roberts Court of fools. |
Civil War watch.
When the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the people, more people will revolt against the system.
It may time for the U.S. move past the Supreme Court and maneuver a place in the International Court of Justice. The United States Supreme Court is totally out of touch with a growing demographic that isn't white or male.
The decision that rolled out on Monday and today's have finally came. The public will react to them in some fashion.
The Associated Press, HuffPost and Politico contributed to the blog post.
Okay, the ruling on transgender women. The court ruled that states can officially ban transgender Americans from playing sports if they were biologically born male or female.
I hope that transgender Americans stop paying their taxes or defy state bans and do it anyway. Cause you aren't going to be a genital inspector in a locker room.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Title IX, the federal gender equity law, allows bans on trans girls’ and women’s participation in female school sports to stand.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 6-3 decision, which combined two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. He was joined by Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
“The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The more liberal justices concurred in part and dissented in part.
The Hecox case arose in 2020 when Idaho became the first state in the nation to pass a ban on trans girls’ and women’s participation in women’s athletics. That year, Lindsay Hecox, a trans woman who was then a first-year student at Boise State University, challenged Idaho’s law, claiming it violated her rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Hecox won both her cases in the district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, before the Supreme Court granted Idaho’s petition to hear the case in July of last year. Hecox has since asked the court to consider her case moot because she no longer plays or intends to play any sports. She said in her brief to the Supreme Court that she feared for her safety and ability to graduate as the subject of a high-profile case.
The other case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., examined a similar law and alleged that West Virginia’s ban also infringes on the gender equity law Title IX.
In both cases, the lawyers for the plaintiffs expressed fairly modest claims. They argued that only trans women and girls who have undergone hormone therapy should be allowed to play on women’s teams. Both Hecox and Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the other case, have done so.
The conservative Christian legal group representing both Idaho and West Virginia, the Alliance Defending Freedom, tried to make the case to the court for broader restrictions on trans rights by arguing that transgender identity is not the same as sex, and therefore should not be covered by equal protection statutes that prohibit sex discrimination.
LGBTQ+ advocates say anti-trans sports bans not only impact trans athletes but also open the door to invasive sex verification that can target anyone. Idaho’s law allows anyone to raise a claim disputing a student-athlete’s sex, which would require the student to see a doctor to verify their sex based on their reproductive organs, testosterone levels or genetics.
So far, 27 states have passed bans on trans athletes’ participating in women’s sports.
The Supreme Court struck down limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties on Tuesday, a win for Republicans that will fundamentally change how tens of millions of dollars are spent in congressional elections.
![]() |
| These are the same fools who are paying more in groceries. They have to have a scapegoat. Blame transgender Americans for their shitty lives. |
The decision will have an almost immediate impact on the midterms. Removing the limit on coordinated spending effectively gives candidates direct control over a far greater amount of money being spent on their races. It is also likely to increase the flood of political advertising that hits the airwaves each fall.
The Supreme Court rejects President Donald J. Trump's executive order to strip birthright citizenship. It is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and requires a constitutional amendment to change that.
A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”
Three conservative justices would have allowed the restrictions to take effect.
The Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S.
During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order’s legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump’s unprecedented attendance in the courtroom.
The case framed another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices.
The justices ruled on Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions.
The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.
![]() |
| The Supreme Court sucks. They all suck. |
Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.
Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic.
He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize “dumb judges and justices” and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship.
Trump’s order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.
The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause is written more broadly. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it reads.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen.
The Trump administration argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.
While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.
![]() |
| Bobbie Hirsch, a transmale fencer. He will now be banned from participating in athletes in states that bans transgender Americans from playing sports. |
Since 1948, all the U.S. presidents maintained a special relationship with a religious apartheid genocidal ethnostate. As we are moving closer to another world war, our current president isn't stepping off that boat yet.
![]() |
| The Trump Administration won. They can now legally deport Haitians and Syrians who filed for temporary asylum. |
I support Black women and date them. I have dated outside my race and will continue to do so. I hold no bias towards white women, Asian American women, transwomen, women with disabilities, women with body type and any woman of color. I would date anyone who like me for being me. For now, I rather stay single.





No comments:
Post a Comment