3 ms·

That link refers to decisions made based the US Code and the constitution. Politicians write those. Courts have responsibility in interpreting them. It’s still

by tyleo 1y ago

That link refers to decisions made based the US Code and the constitution. Politicians write those. Courts have responsibility in interpreting them. It’s still a politicians job to take a stance and decide what they should be.

estearum 1y ago
Correct, which as I said: "At least a SCOTUS decision," where "amend the Constitution" is a significantly higher bar to meet. If you think we're going to amend the Constitution to ban gender affirming care for inmates you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished? Inmates received this care under Trump 1 (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons-transgender-care-harris.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons... They've tried stopping it in Trump 2 but have been enjoined by courts (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporarily-enjoins-federal-prison-officials-from-withholding-health-care-from-incarcerated-trans-people https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporaril...
- tyleo 1y ago
  > you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished Your reaction proves the point that this is a purity test. I’m not taking a stance one way or the other but you aren't able to engage without arguing against points I didn’t make.
  - estearum 1y ago
    What? Your argument: It is a purity test for politicians to say that transgender inmates should receive care (which Kamala passed, to the detriment of her electability) My argument: It is actually SCOTUS who decides this (or would require a Constitutional amendment, which is obviously absurd)

by tyleo 1y ago

estearum 1y ago

Correct, which as I said: "At least a SCOTUS decision," where "amend the Constitution" is a significantly higher bar to meet. If you think we're going to amend the Constitution to ban gender affirming care for inmates you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished? Inmates received this care under Trump 1 (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons-transgender-care-harris.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons... They've tried stopping it in Trump 2 but have been enjoined by courts (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporarily-enjoins-federal-prison-officials-from-withholding-health-care-from-incarcerated-trans-people https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporaril...

tyleo 1y ago
> you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished Your reaction proves the point that this is a purity test. I’m not taking a stance one way or the other but you aren't able to engage without arguing against points I didn’t make.
- estearum 1y ago
  What? Your argument: It is a purity test for politicians to say that transgender inmates should receive care (which Kamala passed, to the detriment of her electability) My argument: It is actually SCOTUS who decides this (or would require a Constitutional amendment, which is obviously absurd)