Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

My “outrage” has nothing to do with the actual procedure. It has everything to do with Idaho taxpayers footing the bill.

I can appreciate that. I hope you understand I wasn't calling you, or anyone else, transphobic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I can appreciate that. I hope you understand I wasn't calling you, or anyone else, transphobic.

Thanks. You and I are good Toons. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

"Conservative" judicial appointments tend to be originalists more far more often.  Legislating from the bench tends to happen more when you view the constitution as a living, breathing document.  

1. constitutional issues are a minority of the issues ruled upon. Gorsuch might be your wet dream but his labor rulings spooked the hell out of me.

2. "legislating from the bench" is how laws were originally created man. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

1. constitutional issues are a minority of the issues ruled upon. Gorsuch might be your wet dream but his labor rulings spooked the hell out of me.

2. "legislating from the bench" is how laws were originally created man. 

Context.  The entire crux of this ruling was that it violated the 8th.  You are wrong, at the higher courts, the constitution almost always plays a part or it does not go to superior courts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Cocaine Mitch has been amazing.  Packing the courts with conservative judges is the only chance we have to protect our constitutional rights.  I just wish they realized drugs should be decriminalized and weed legalized.  Same with prostitution.  Same with gambling.  

Money is speech.

Corps are citizens.

Non compete clauses for employees are legal.

Gov employees are exempt from lawsuits.

Yeah, The Trumpistan SCOTUS is really protecting our Civil and Constitutional Rights.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

So, you don't want to respond to the substance of what I just said?

Let me repeat the statement that you willfully ignored and did not respond to.

 

 

I disagree with your premise that this particular judge is a "rogue activist judge", or was just applying the law.  (have you never heard of the 9th circuit?)  I think he's actually very representative of the Democratic Party and the 9th Circuit.

Do you disagree with this?  (Or are you going to give another non-response?)

The question is still valid.  You are assuming, with no presented facts, the judges are inaccurately applying the law.   Ideally we have judges that accurately apply the law.  It’s a fair question to ask if the result is from the law or the judge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
11 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The question is still valid.  You are assuming, with no presented facts, the judges are inaccurately applying the law.   Ideally we have judges that accurately apply the law.  It’s a fair question to ask if the result is from the law or the judge.  

 No, not quite accurate.  I'm presuming (with good reason), based on past behavior and practices, that the 9th Circuit has a WELL EARNED reputation for being a biased, activist court.

We always see these radical, ridiculous, extremist rulings come from the 9th Circuit.   It's the Circuit where the Democratic Party files all their lawsuits, right?

 

To put the question back on you....

If this decision is simply based on the judge applying the law (and not blind activism), then please show me another Circuit (there are 13) that has ALSO ruled that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to get sex change operations paid for by the government.  If it's the law, Surely, one of the other appeals courts would agree, right?  So, please share which other circuits agree....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 No, not quite accurate.  I'm presuming (with good reason), based on past behavior and practices, that the 9th Circuit has a WELL EARNED reputation for being a biased, activist court.

We always see these radical, ridiculous, extremist rulings come from the 9th Circuit.   It's the Circuit where the Democratic Party files all their lawsuits, right?

 

To put the question back on you....

If this decision is simply based on the judge applying the law (and not blind activism), then please show me another Circuit (there are 13) that has ALSO ruled that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to get sex change operations paid for by the government.  If it's the law, Surely, one of the other appeals courts would agree, right?  So, please share which other circuits agree....

It could be state law so your point isn’t valid.   Instead you jumped to a conclusion without knowing the facts.  Which is fine we all do but you could acknowledge a legitimate question.  Instead you press forward with potential mis-characterizations kind of like the Tara Reade posts whom is looking less credible everyday.  
 

Reade has come under fire for billing herself as “a domestic violence expert” when testifying as a government witness in Monterey County, Calif. court cases, with ABC News reporting that she “touted Biden’s work for women” while under oath, citing transcripts.

She served as an expert witness in various cases for years, but her newfound fame has put a spotlight on her legitimacy.

“Defense attorneys are reportedly now trying to determine if the transcripts show she provided false testimony about her credentials,” ABC News reported, noting that claims she earned a B.A. from Antioch University have raised eyebrows.

The Times also reported that lawyers were looking into Reade’s past.

“On Thursday in California, lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus,” the Times reported.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

An Antioch University spokesperson told ABC News that Reade “attended but did not graduate.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
12 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

It could be state law so your point isn’t valid.   Instead you jumped to a conclusion without knowing the facts.  Which is fine we all do but you could acknowledge a legitimate question.  Instead you press forward with potential mis-characterizations kind of like the Tara Reade posts whom is looking less credible everyday.  
 

Reade has come under fire for billing herself as “a domestic violence expert” when testifying as a government witness in Monterey County, Calif. court cases, with ABC News reporting that she “touted Biden’s work for women” while under oath, citing transcripts.

She served as an expert witness in various cases for years, but her newfound fame has put a spotlight on her legitimacy.

“Defense attorneys are reportedly now trying to determine if the transcripts show she provided false testimony about her credentials,” ABC News reported, noting that claims she earned a B.A. from Antioch University have raised eyebrows.

The Times also reported that lawyers were looking into Reade’s past.

“On Thursday in California, lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus,” the Times reported.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

An Antioch University spokesperson told ABC News that Reade “attended but did not graduate.”

 

You completely dodged and avoided the question.  And then very oddly tried to change to topic to Tara Reade????

This is not a Tara Reade thread.  You are embarrassing yourself.

 

Back up your assertion...

Back on topic:

If this decision is simply based on the judge applying the law (and not blind activism), then please show me another Circuit (there are 13) that has ALSO ruled that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to get sex change operations paid for by the government.  If it's just about applying the law, Surely, one of the other appeals courts would agree, right?  So, please share which other circuits agree....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

You completely dodged and avoided the question.  And then very oddly tried to change to topic to Tara Reade????

This is not s Tara Reade thread.  You are embarrassing yourself.

 

Back up your assertion...

Back on topic:

If this decision is simply based on the judge applying the law (and not blind activism), then please show me another Circuit (there are 13) that has ALSO ruled that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to get sex change operations paid for by the government.  If it's just about applying the law, Surely, one of the other appeals courts would agree, right?  So, please share which other circuits agree....

I answered your question directly.  It could very well be a state law being applied so your question is a snipe hunt.  Besides it’s your thread impugning the court so you ought to respond to a valid question and show, in fact, it’s not a function of the underlying law.  
 

as for Reade just showing a pattern of impugning without the facts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
11 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I answered your question directly.  It could very well be a state law being applied so your question is a snipe hunt.  Besides it’s your thread impugning the court so you ought to respond to a valid question and show, in fact, it’s not a function of the underlying law.  

No, you oddly tried to change the subject and posted about Tara Reade.

Your whole assertion is that we simply can't know if the 9th Circuit was being predictably radical and activist (as usual), or that the Judge had to apply the law as it was written (as you argue), when the Ninth Circuit Judge ruled that a prisoner has a United States Constitutional right to get a government paid sex change operation.  

So... I simply challenged your dumb statement, and said, we can absolutely know, by seeing if other Circuits ruled the same way as the 9th Circuit. 

Please find a single other circuit that ruled the same as the 9th Circuit...   

You then oddly responded by suggesting that it was a silly question, because "it is Idaho law" (very dumb statement....wrong, it's the US Constitution at issue), and oddly tried to change the subject to Tara Reade.

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question?  The linked article even mentions the 5th Circuit not agreeing, so of course my question is valid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

No, you oddly tried to change the subject and posted about Tara Reade.

Your whole assertion is that we simply can't know if the 9th Circuit was being predictably radical and activist (as usual), or that the Judge had to apply the law as it was written (as you argue), when the Ninth Circuit Judge ruled that a prisoner has a United States Constitutional right to get a government paid sex change operation.  

So... I simply challenged your dumb statement, and said, we can absolutely know, by seeing if other Circuits ruled the same way as the 9th Circuit. 

Please find a single other circuit that ruled the same as the 9th Circuit...   

You then oddly responded by suggesting that it was a silly question, because "it is Idaho law" (very dumb statement....wrong, it's the US Constitution at issue), and oddly tried to change the subject to Tara Reade.

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question?  The linked article even mentions the 5th Circuit not agreeing, so of course my question is valid.

 

Keep dodging a simple question. Cite the law and I will be happy to see what other cases may be associated to it.  But you keep ranting without making any reference to the underlying statutes at play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Keep dodging a simple question. Cite the law and I will be happy to see what other cases may be associated to it.  But you keep ranting without making any reference to the underlying statutes at play.  

Dodging?  Are you dense?

For the 3rd time:. The "law" (which you oddly claimed is only applicable in Idaho) is the US Constitution.  It was even mentioned in the news article:

 

“Responsible prison authorities were deliberately indifferent to Edmo’s gender dysphoria, in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” the 9th Circuit ruling stated, adding it was established that "Edmo had a serious medical need, that the appropriate medical treatment was GCS [gender confirmation surgery], and that prison authorities had not provided that treatment despite full knowledge of Edmo’s ongoing and extreme suffering and medical needs.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loling at @sactowndog and his “I’m not a Democrat” claims. @#1Stunner is getting a good example of Sactown’s rabbit trails and moving goal posts. It’s practically impossible to engage in a discussion with the guy because he cannot stay on topic. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Loling at @sactowndog and his “I’m not a Democrat” claims. @#1Stunner is getting a good example of Sactown’s rabbit trails and moving goal posts. It’s practically impossible to engage in a discussion with the guy because he cannot stay on topic. 

Actually you can validly accuse me of being lazy because I failed to read the link because I was mildly interested in the topic.  I also mistakingly thought it was Stunner’s topic and not yours.   The data I was looking for was in the link and could have easily been provided without Stunner’s snipe hunt.   

“There are decades of Eighth Amendment precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court repeatedly has found that when you’re assessing whether prison officials are deliberately indifferent — which is the legal standard — with regard to the provision of medical care in prison, that you look to the consensus of the medical community,” Whelan explained.

Now, actually having bothered to read the link, it seems more sad than the 9th Circuit being wildly off base.   This case could easily be about the son of some friends of mine who is significantly mentally ill.   He has some of the same gender dysphoria issues in addition to many other psychotic issues.  Given the inmate cuts himself gender dysphoria isn’t likely the inmates only problem either.  I coached my friends son in water polo his freshman season and pray for him often so this situation kind of hits close to home.  

How do you apply deliberately indifferent, which is the agreed legal standard, in the case of severe mental illness?  I don’t think this question is as easily answered as Stunner would like to make it seem.  These people aren’t functioning like normal rational people.  It doesn’t say if the inmate is in the general prison population but I suspect he might be.  If anything the “deliberate indifference” is society generally subjecting the prison system with inmates they aren’t trained to or capable of handling.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

 

If this decision is simply based on the judge applying the law (and not blind activism), then please show me another Circuit (there are 13) that has ALSO ruled that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to get sex change operations paid for by the government.  If it's the law, Surely, one of the other appeals courts would agree, right?  So, please share which other circuits agree....

Have there been any which disagreed?

Have other appellate courts ruled on this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
5 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Have there been any which disagreed?

Have other appellate courts ruled on this issue?

Here is the link for the article (in the very first post) that was the basis of this thread.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/idaho-must-provide-sex-reassignment-surgery-trans-inmate-court-rules-n1046501

The 5th Circuit — which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi — ruled in March 2019 that "A state does not inflict cruel and unusual punishment by declining to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...