If Florida Republicans’ new anti-gay bill passes, parents can sue a public school that “encourage[s] classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” in a manner that is not “developmentally appropriate.” If they win, parents get damages and attorneys’ fees.
This bill has already passed out of a House committee and appears to be racing through the legislature. It would gag pretty much all discussion of LGBTQ people or issues at Florida public schools (unless teachers wanted to risk ruinous lawsuits). flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2…
Off topic, but bills like this remind me how sad it is that some gays (primarily men?) pretend the Republican Party doesn’t hate gay people any more. Like, dude, they hate you so much that are outlawing the mere mention of homosexuality in schools! How much clearer can they be?
Bingo. Among other things, this bill clearly targets and discriminates against LGBTQ schoolteachers. A gay teacher could risk a lawsuit merely by mentioning his husband.
1. No discussion of LGBTQ issues in primary school, period. 2. No discussion of LGBTQ issues in other grades if it would not be "developmentally appropriate." (An exceedingly vague standard.)
I hate to draw attention to this troll because attention is what he craves. But now that @GeorgetownLaw has hired him, I feel an obligation to condemn his overt and nauseating racism, which has been a matter of public record for some time. I am deeply ashamed of my alma mater.
Let's be clear: Shapiro would have accused ANY Black woman nominee of having a "lesser" intellect—even if Biden had not announced his demographic criteria beforehand. That's how he smeared Sotomayor, even though Obama never promised to nominate a Latina. cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/…
To Shapiro, the nomination of any woman of color is inherently suspect. He simply cannot see how such a candidate might have earned the position; he assumes she coasted, undeservedly, on affirmative action. And he doesn't see how this belief is colored by his own racism.
The Supreme Court's first and only opinion today is in a boring ERISA case that I did not follow. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf… 🤷♂️
I really do try to follow every dispute that the Supreme Court deems important enough to take up, but I simply must draw the line at ERISA and FERC cases. Otherwise I may truly lose the will to live.
Sometimes Alito recuses himself from FERC cases because his personal investments create a conflict of interest. I have a theory that he holds onto those stocks just so he has an excuse to bow out. Can't blame him.
The Supreme Court will reconsider whether race-conscious admissions in higher education violated both federal civil rights law and the Constitution, setting the stage for a total ban on affirmative action. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will hear challenges to affirmative action in higher education this term or next term. The calendar is pretty full this term, so the court may push oral arguments to October 2022. Stay tuned.
BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Trump's attempt to block the release of his White House records to the Jan. 6 committee. The vote is apparently 8–1 with only Justice Thomas dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
The Supreme Court's order rests on the D.C. Circuit's determination that Trump's attempt to block the documents would fail "even if he were the incumbent." So SCOTUS declined to draw a distinction between the privilege of former and current presidents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Justice Kavanaugh writes separately concurring with the decision against Trump while declaring that former presidents CAN claim executive privilege even when the current president waives that privilege. The majority does not endorse or reject this view. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
So the Sotomayor–Gorsuch statement denies something that wasn't alleged.
That said, the NPR report did suggest that Gorsuch's refusal to mask up made Sotomayor uncomfortable, while this statement (arguably) implies that she is not uncomfortable. Hard to say. It's very vague.
By a 2–1 vote, a Florida appeals court overruled a judge who refused to let a 17-year-old terminate her pregnancy because she was not "sufficiently mature."
I will never understand the argument that a teenager can be too immature to get an abortion but mature enough to have a child. I guess the Amy Coney Barrett answer is that the teen can just drop her baby off at a fire station and forget about it.
Which decision requires more maturity: Taking a few pills to end a pregnancy, or carrying a pregnancy for nine months, then birthing and possibly raising a child? The teen here just wants a medication abortion and the dissenter says: "No, she's not mature enough for that!" What?!