dontmeantobepoliticalbut reblogged
A federal judge in Mississippi has blocked enactment of a Biden administration rule designed to prevent medical care from being denied to those seeking treatment related to gender identity or sexual orientation.
The lawsuit U.S. Southern District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. ruled on Wednesday was filed by 15 states, including Mississippi. But he said his injunction preventing the Biden administration from enforcing its rule would apply nationwide. His ruling is likely to be appealed.
On social media, the Human Rights Campaign proclaimed, “This is not over. All LGBTQ+ people should receive the health care we deserve and be able to make informed decisions about our own bodies.”
The Biden administration rule enacted earlier this year is designed to ensure those seeking medical care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation are not subject to discrimination. The rule is supposed to cover entities receiving federal funds for the delivery of health care.
The states argued against being forced to provide gender-affirming care through Medicaid programs or through health plans for state employees. In addition, the states argued against private insurance companies being required to provide such care.
“Injecting gender identity into our state’s medical system is a dangerous pursuit of a political agenda from the Biden Administration,” Mississippi Attorney Lynn Fitch said in a statement. “Medical professionals should not be forced to provide gender transition surgeries or drugs against their judgment and hospitals should not be prohibited from providing women-only spaces for patients. I am proud to lead the multistate effort with Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to stop the Biden Administration and push back on this reckless rule.”
The lawsuit is one of many filed by attorneys general and others objecting to the Biden administration interpreting Title IX to apply to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity. Congress passed, and President Richard Nixon signed into law, Title IX in 1972 to ban sexual discrimination.
In response to one of the similar lawsuits ruled on earlier in Louisiana, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “Every student … deserves to be safe. Every young person deserves protection from bullying, misgendering and abuse.”
Robinson added, referring to the earlier court ruling, “This is MAGA theatrics with the dangerous goal of weaving discrimination into state law.”
Mississippi has passed a state law prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care even if it is recommended by physicians.
On social media, Gov. Tate Reeves said, “The Biden Administration attempted to undermine Title IX by dramatically reinterpreting its meaning to now apply to gender identity. Thankfully, a federal court judge has sided with Mississippi and other states who chose to stand up for women and defend Title IX as it currently exists.”
The lawsuit filed by Fitch and other attorneys general argued that their states could be penalized by the loss of federal Medicaid funds, for example, if they did not adhere to the rule.
In blocking the rule, Guirola cited the Chevron case where the U.S. Supreme Court recently said that federal agencies should not be given deference in their rules-making.
#us politics#news#common dreams#op ed#thom hartmann#2024#2024 elections#kevin roberts#heritage foundation#us supreme court#authoritarianism#fascism#oligarchy#founding fathers#Lewis Powell#Powell Memo#First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti#us constitution#Bill of Rights#Buckley v. Valeo#citizens united v. fec#chevron v. natural resources defense council#Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo#The Hidden History of American Oligarchy
#us politics#news#the hill#op ed#us supreme court#presidential immunity#donald trump#conservatives#republicans#trump v. united states#Jack Smith#justice john roberts#Justice Sonia Sotomayor#Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson#us constitution#framer's intent#founding fathers#article ii#Speech and Debate Clause#Impeachment Clause#Kimberly Wehle#originalism
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that overturned the landmark “Chevron doctrine” may give Wyoming an advantage when mounting court challenges for and against federal regulations and actions on issues ranging from wildlife and land management to energy development and industrial emissions.
Gov. Mark Gordon and Wyoming’s congressional delegation have hailed the ruling as a clear legal advantage in fighting federal agency actions they don’t like. But the ruling doesn’t necessarily hand Wyoming — or anybody else who sues federal agencies — a clear path to victory in court, according to several Wyoming and out-of-state observers.
Wyoming has much at stake. 48% of the land and 68% of the mineral estate are managed by the federal government and the Equality State has many active grievances against federal agencies now active in the courts. Since 2019, Gordon’s administration has initiated or participated in at least 57 lawsuits either challenging federal natural resources policies, or defending federal positions from litigation brought by public health and conservation groups, according to a list of lawsuits his office provided to WyoFile.
#us politics#news#wyofile#Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council#us supreme court#Wyoming#Gov. Mark Gordon#government oversight#deregulation#Bureau of Land Management#Environmental Protection Agency#U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service#Shannon Anderson#Cynthia Lummis#Harriet Hageman#John Barrasso#Sam Kalen#2024
Donald Trump rushed to distance himself from the Republicans’ highly controversial Project 2025 Friday, calling parts of it “ridiculous and abysmal.”
The ex-president used his Truth Social platform to disavow the platform, drawn up by the Heritage Foundation, which offers a 900-page preview of how the most powerful think-tank in the conservative movement wants him to govern. He acted three days after the man who drew it up told Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Among Project 2025’s most controversial–and potentially electorally costly–plans are restricting access to contraception; using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for heightened “abortion surveillance”; and revoking a Department of Defense policy funding travel for abortion. It calls the line-up of policies “Restoring the Family as the Centerpiece of American Life.”
But Trump posted on his platform, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
The move suggests that Trump’s aides are concerned that Democrats have been able to insert Project 2025 into the public mind and associate Trump with its most radical ideas, at a time when the Republican Party should be on the front foot. Trump has had a poll boost from the crisis in Joe Biden’s presidency caused by his stumbling debate performance, but there are concerns in his campaign that a focus on abortion policy would give Democrats a potent weapon.
dontmeantobepoliticalbut reblogged
A Fascist Terrorist Organization. Hiding behind the label of an old political party.
dontmeantobepoliticalbut reblogged
POPSICKLE MITCH! HE'S FINE!
NO!, REALLY! HE'S FINE!
The leader of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation argued the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will reinforce a “second American Revolution,” which he said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast how the Supreme Court ruling on immunity — which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecutions for actions in office — should encourage conservatives.
“In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win. We’re in the process of taking this country back. No one in the audience should be despairing,” Roberts said, adding, “And in spite of all of the injustice, which, of course, friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve know, we are going to prevail.”
“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” he added later.
Calling the Supreme Court ruling “vital,” Roberts pointed to Alexander Hamilton’s 1877 essay Federalist No. 70, in which he argued for a strong executive leader.
“You know, former congressman, the importance of Congress doing its job, but we also know the importance of the executive being able to do his job,” Roberts told former Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who hosted the podcast episode, with Bannon having reported to prison this week. “And can you imagine, Dave Brat, any president — put politics off to the side — any president having to second-guess, triple-guess every decision they’re making in their official capacity, you couldn’t have the republic that you just described.”
Robert’s Heritage Foundation is the moving force behind Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for a possible Trump reelection in November. The nearly 1,000-page handbook is aimed at advancing right-wing policies and expanding the powers of the presidency.
Authors describe Project 2025 as a guide of what the next president needs to do to undo the “damage” to America they argue is caused by liberal politicians. Critics of Project 2025 call it authoritarian and “un-American.”
Roberts later expanded upon his argument, stating the “second American Revolution” is to “take back power back from the elites and despotic bureaucrats.”
“These patriots are committed to peaceful revolution at the ballot box. Unfortunately, it’s the Left that has a long history of violence, so it’s up to them to allow a peaceful transfer of power,” Roberts wrote in a statement to The Hill, pointing to alleged weaponization of government agencies and what he described as “violent riots” in 2020.
The Supreme Court handed down the 6-3 decision Monday, ruling along ideological lines that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the core responsibilities of the office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts.
The decision was applauded by Republicans as a win for Trump, who is staring down a federal criminal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The decision is likely to delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to decide if Trump’s actions surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, are protected from criminal prosecution for decisions made while in the White House.
Several Democrats, meanwhile, lambasted the decision, arguing it will embolden future presidents to break the law with impunity. The Democrats have long argued that, under the Constitution, no one — not even the president — is above the law.
By ruling that Trump is protected from prosecution for certain actions, the Supreme Court violated the intentions of the nation’s founders, the Democratic critics said this week.