5 ms·

Federal judge temporarily blocks enforcement of L.G.B.T.Q. protections

35 points by Riseed 4y ago

metadat 4y ago
Un-paywalled: https://archive.ph/5EiUg https://archive.ph/5EiUg
encryptluks2 4y ago
- bergenty 4y ago
  Agreed, I would love Newsom to throw himself into the race.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Newsom is a Boris Johnson. The guy is a joke and he has not excuse for his hypocritical parties during mandatory lockdown. COVID lockdowns are not in public favor and any Democrat that was for mandatory lockdowns will not be successful.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      Just because you keep repeating it it’s not going to come true. Lockdowns are a non factor anymore and America did it’s lockdowns prudently and reasonably. Democrats that act on evidence will be exactly those that will be successful.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        You could be in favor of, opposed to, or neutral on lockdowns, and still be very much against people ordering lockdowns for everybody else and then going to unmasked parties. That - and not the mere fact of the lockdowns - deserves to be Newsome's political death knell.
        bergenty 4y ago
        Nonsense, if trump can get away with a failed coup that sort of imagined contrivance doesn’t even register as an issue.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        I don't see how it will work in anyones' favor except Republicans to run a candidate known for their abuses just because Trump got away with it so far.
        bergenty 4y ago
        Don’t be silly, calling the most rational decision abuse makes you sound insane.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        There is nothing rational about jailing people going to the beach, and then holding your own private mask-free parties. You might as well be calling Boris Johnson parties rational.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        > Prudently and reasonably Except they were jailing people for going on hikes and to the beach, which as science showed was actually counterintuitive. Not all Democrats acted on the science, but instead hypocritically and authoritarianly tried jumping ahead of science rather than taking a rational thought-out approach.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    I think it would be very unusual for the party of the sitting president to nominate any other person.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      One hopes Biden would step down and not try to force himself on us again.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        One hopes, but I think the Democratic party has shown enough times that it will gladly shoot itself in the foot if it somehow means owning the progressives.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      It would be very unusual for an ex-president to be nominated after a failed bit at a second term, but we live in very unusual times. Support for Biden was never better than tepid; people voted for "not Trump" and that's what we got. If Democrats can't find somebody more interesting by 2024, they stand to lose both chambers and the white house. If party wonks don't know that, they're beyond incompetent.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        I think where a lot of people stand is that fear that party wonks do know that and they simply don't care if they lose again, because they can just keep playing the same games.
- Spartan-S63 4y ago
  - WesternWind 4y ago
    That's half right. The Biden administration has been appointing judges, using the fact that it has a bare majority of the senate (50 + the VP). All Federal judges need Senate approval. Biden in fact had the largest number of Article III judicial nominees confirmed during a president's first year in office since Reagan. Democrats aren't trying to work completely legislatively, in fact this decision is an injunction against an administrative rulemaking applying a Supreme court decision preventing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace to other parts of the same law. Because at least one of the 50 Democratic senators don't support the elimination of the senate filibuster for normal legislation, the only laws passed by congress under Biden have been reconciliation bills, which have to be primarily financial in nature, and a few bipartisan bills, (the post uvalde bill on responsible gun ownership and red flag laws). You are right that Republicans are attempting to entrench minority rule using gerrymandering though.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - techdragon 4y ago
      I find it really hard to look at electoral district maps in the USA without feeling like “this is where the all the problems started”… I’ve NEVER seen a valid justification for the sorts of egregious gerrymandering you see all across the USA. It’s like poison,once it’s gerrymandered and the incumbent is safe, they can push their most radical agendas and slide the Overton window slowly towards their own views. And because it benefits them all, I expect reforming who is responsible for district boundaries to never change. The more frustrating thing is under the present political status quo, the only enduring fix would require a constitutional amendment to enshrine a “federal district boundary committee” with something like 33 people serving lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court (even if the pay isn’t that good, a lifetime appointment means they can give the politicians the middle finger as appropriate, once they are in the job), since there’s a lot of district boundaries to look after and the larger the group the harder it is for one party to “pack the court”. But without it being constitutional level law, it would get battered about by congress, and the states and Supreme Court until it died in some disused basement in a bathroom behind a sign that said beware of leopard.
speeder 4y ago
[flagged]
- bergenty 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    What an excellent example of the wacky partisanship GP is describing.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      - chitowneats 4y ago
  - squegles 4y ago
    Don’t kid yourself. Both sides lie to us.
    - another_story 4y ago
      I find the lies to be different. Right wing and left wing media are both prone to hyperbole, but the right seems to fabricate more "truths" from rumors and conspiracy theories, asking what if questions. The left filters and distorts facts to present things how they want.
- slg 4y ago
  This is the 4th paragraph of the linked article: >In those directives, the agencies said that companies and schools could not deny a transgender person access to a bathroom that corresponded to that individual’s gender identity. They also said that students should be allowed to participate on a sports team consistent with their gender identity, and that federally funded schools have a responsibility to investigate sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, against students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The NYT is hiding information behind a paywall not "depending on their preferred party". Googling the quote you included brings up nothing so I am guessing you are paraphrasing. So who exactly are you talking about when you say "newspapers outright hide crucial information depending on their preferred party"?
raybb 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13988 is the executive order that is being blocked right now.
cato_the_elder 4y ago
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- slg 4y ago
  >No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread. It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency. It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.
    - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
        4y ago

35 points by Riseed 4y ago

metadat 4y ago

Un-paywalled: https://archive.ph/5EiUg https://archive.ph/5EiUg

encryptluks2 4y ago

bergenty 4y ago
Agreed, I would love Newsom to throw himself into the race.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Newsom is a Boris Johnson. The guy is a joke and he has not excuse for his hypocritical parties during mandatory lockdown. COVID lockdowns are not in public favor and any Democrat that was for mandatory lockdowns will not be successful.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    Just because you keep repeating it it’s not going to come true. Lockdowns are a non factor anymore and America did it’s lockdowns prudently and reasonably. Democrats that act on evidence will be exactly those that will be successful.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      You could be in favor of, opposed to, or neutral on lockdowns, and still be very much against people ordering lockdowns for everybody else and then going to unmasked parties. That - and not the mere fact of the lockdowns - deserves to be Newsome's political death knell.
      - bergenty 4y ago
        Nonsense, if trump can get away with a failed coup that sort of imagined contrivance doesn’t even register as an issue.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        I don't see how it will work in anyones' favor except Republicans to run a candidate known for their abuses just because Trump got away with it so far.
        bergenty 4y ago
        Don’t be silly, calling the most rational decision abuse makes you sound insane.
        encryptluks2 4y ago
        There is nothing rational about jailing people going to the beach, and then holding your own private mask-free parties. You might as well be calling Boris Johnson parties rational.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      > Prudently and reasonably Except they were jailing people for going on hikes and to the beach, which as science showed was actually counterintuitive. Not all Democrats acted on the science, but instead hypocritically and authoritarianly tried jumping ahead of science rather than taking a rational thought-out approach.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  I think it would be very unusual for the party of the sitting president to nominate any other person.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    One hopes Biden would step down and not try to force himself on us again.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      One hopes, but I think the Democratic party has shown enough times that it will gladly shoot itself in the foot if it somehow means owning the progressives.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    It would be very unusual for an ex-president to be nominated after a failed bit at a second term, but we live in very unusual times. Support for Biden was never better than tepid; people voted for "not Trump" and that's what we got. If Democrats can't find somebody more interesting by 2024, they stand to lose both chambers and the white house. If party wonks don't know that, they're beyond incompetent.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      I think where a lot of people stand is that fear that party wonks do know that and they simply don't care if they lose again, because they can just keep playing the same games.
Spartan-S63 4y ago
- WesternWind 4y ago
  That's half right. The Biden administration has been appointing judges, using the fact that it has a bare majority of the senate (50 + the VP). All Federal judges need Senate approval. Biden in fact had the largest number of Article III judicial nominees confirmed during a president's first year in office since Reagan. Democrats aren't trying to work completely legislatively, in fact this decision is an injunction against an administrative rulemaking applying a Supreme court decision preventing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace to other parts of the same law. Because at least one of the 50 Democratic senators don't support the elimination of the senate filibuster for normal legislation, the only laws passed by congress under Biden have been reconciliation bills, which have to be primarily financial in nature, and a few bipartisan bills, (the post uvalde bill on responsible gun ownership and red flag laws). You are right that Republicans are attempting to entrench minority rule using gerrymandering though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - techdragon 4y ago
    I find it really hard to look at electoral district maps in the USA without feeling like “this is where the all the problems started”… I’ve NEVER seen a valid justification for the sorts of egregious gerrymandering you see all across the USA. It’s like poison,once it’s gerrymandered and the incumbent is safe, they can push their most radical agendas and slide the Overton window slowly towards their own views. And because it benefits them all, I expect reforming who is responsible for district boundaries to never change. The more frustrating thing is under the present political status quo, the only enduring fix would require a constitutional amendment to enshrine a “federal district boundary committee” with something like 33 people serving lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court (even if the pay isn’t that good, a lifetime appointment means they can give the politicians the middle finger as appropriate, once they are in the job), since there’s a lot of district boundaries to look after and the larger the group the harder it is for one party to “pack the court”. But without it being constitutional level law, it would get battered about by congress, and the states and Supreme Court until it died in some disused basement in a bathroom behind a sign that said beware of leopard.

speeder 4y ago

[flagged]

bergenty 4y ago
[flagged]
- chitowneats 4y ago
  What an excellent example of the wacky partisanship GP is describing.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    - chitowneats 4y ago
- squegles 4y ago
  Don’t kid yourself. Both sides lie to us.
  - another_story 4y ago
    I find the lies to be different. Right wing and left wing media are both prone to hyperbole, but the right seems to fabricate more "truths" from rumors and conspiracy theories, asking what if questions. The left filters and distorts facts to present things how they want.
slg 4y ago
This is the 4th paragraph of the linked article: >In those directives, the agencies said that companies and schools could not deny a transgender person access to a bathroom that corresponded to that individual’s gender identity. They also said that students should be allowed to participate on a sports team consistent with their gender identity, and that federally funded schools have a responsibility to investigate sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, against students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The NYT is hiding information behind a paywall not "depending on their preferred party". Googling the quote you included brings up nothing so I am guessing you are paraphrasing. So who exactly are you talking about when you say "newspapers outright hide crucial information depending on their preferred party"?

raybb 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13988 is the executive order that is being blocked right now.

cato_the_elder 4y ago

beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
slg 4y ago
>No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > That is the original text. But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome. > Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread. It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency. It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.
  - beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > Have you been a minority in tech? Yes. > any environment controlled by a HR policy. Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
      - 4y ago