Theres a 1/4th chance that in my law class, Im going to hear (and argue myself) for/against trans discrimination in the workplace. I think hearing two other cis people talk about my fucking rights might blow a fuse in me. Esp when theres going to be half of the people arguing for it. Theres even a chance I have to argue for my own discrimination ;-; I really hope the teacher picks a VERY different case pleaseeeee.
You must log in or # to comment.
tee cee dee
Oh my GOOOOOOOOD why must they do things like this. They just don’t understand at all :(
just mentioning trans people means ur progressive ig, without considering what that would look like
But now that you’re there, argue the fuck out of that case, if you’re assigned to argue against your own rights make a mockery of it
oh fuck yeah ofc im going to go hard. No way im arguing for my own discrimination tho, teacher knows im trans so id bring the roof down
Argue them to death… I want you to put all the pain of your existence into this one thing… be the most put to gather, the most prepared, the most everything and simply destroy them.
Serve, eat, leave no crumbs and annihilate!
ONLY for you <333
🤗😚
Which case?
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
The argument for that was pretty strait forward but now that I think of it… it did really rely upon saying “well why cant my client wear a dress to the funeral home? Oh because they’re a man? That’s title 9 sex discrimination!!”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ahhhhhh I can see them choosing this case. Particularly, in light of Chiles v. Salazar
Yeah I think it’s easy to argue tbh. Just pisses me off yaknow??
I dunno though, as profCat hints at above, there have been multiple cases since Bostock that muddy the waters on the juris prudence, Mahmoud V. Taylor / Skremetti / and fuck you fuck fuck I just read the news about Chile v Salazar…
Shit has turned hard since Bostock is all I’m saying, and they have never successfully cited Bostock as precedent … so they have been narrowing it repeatedly.
Is the assignment to argue the case again in 2026 or re-argue it in 2020?
I haven’t done any research on it yet (there’s a chance it’s not the case we’re working on), however I really appreciate you sending all of this!! It’s a very good jumping off point. Thanks so much
Are you also interested in law?
I began listening to the SCOTUS cases live in 2020 when they first started broadcasting them, to be fair with a 5-4 court the arguments made were regularly of better quality and complexity than they are now with 6-3 where they don’t even seem to feign caring anymore about logical consistency and precedent…
KBJ has been an incredibly important addition I think just because she really has a way of starting and ending with one refutation that is explained in very stark terms over and over again, which I think is effective for highlighting how ludicrous people like Alito and Thomas AND ROBERTS (I fucking hate when this dude gets a pass, 'Major Questions Doctrine" can go fuck itself) arguments have really become and how devoid from good faith they make rulings.
Not a lawyer and never will be at this point in my life, but I feel like the court has been flying under the radar by moving in the shadow of the absurd Congress - but theirs is an explicit 50 year project to roll back the clock on society and legitimize the imperial presidency, and they are doing a pretty good job of it unfortunately 🙃
Sorry I took so long to respond to this. I just didnt realize how amazing you fucking are
YES YES YES YES YES TRVKE HOLY FUCKING SHIT. PEOPLE DONT REALIZE THAT REAL POWER IS HELD WITHIN THE COURTS. ITS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET TRANS RIGHTS. ITS THE ONLY AVENUE. FUCK YOURE MY FAVORITE POSTER NOW.
and YES Thomas and Roberts are DUMB AS FUCK in particular. FUCK you get it!! I actually need to be friends with u
