Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Support DU (and get rid of ads!): All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Wed Aug 23, 2023, 10:36 AM Aug 2023
Trump Judges Have a New Strategy for Gutting Minority Rightshttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/trump-judges-supreme-court-anti-trans-bill.html
Can a state prohibit gay people from adopting children or stop immigrants from purchasing property? Under modern Supreme Court precedent, the answer to these questions is an emphatic no. Over the past week, however, federal judges appointed by Donald Trump have answered both questions yes, and without a hint of doubt or discomfort. To greenlight this wave of hate, Trump judges are ignoring more enlightened contemporary precedent, relying instead on old, repudiated decisions that upheld bigotry and oppression. By invoking these zombie precedents, Trumps judges are attempting to roll back decades of constitutional progress to create space for the Republican Partys ongoing pursuit of nativist and anti-LGBTQ state-level legislation. Only the Supreme Court can send these discredited pseudo-precedents back to their tomband it is unclear if they will bother to do so.
The award for most shocking and gratuitous revival of zombie precedent must go to Judge Barbara Lagoa, whose opinion in Mondays Eknes-Tucker v. Alabama constitutes a venomous ambush of the Souths LGBTQ+ community. Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Lagoa upheld Alabamas criminalization of gender-affirming care for transgender minors, joined in full by fellow Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher and District Judge J.P. Boulee, whos sitting on the case. (All three are Trump appointees.)
There are several constitutional infirmities in Alabamas law, most of which Lagoa tried to circumvent by mechanically citing Dobbs to support the notion that trans health care cant be a fundamental right because it didnt exist in 1868. But that approach did not resolve a different problem: The Supreme Court has long held that parents do have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. As the lower court ruled in this case, Alabama infringed on that right by revoking parents ability to direct the medical care of their kids in accordance with medically accepted standards. This intrusion into parental authority is subject to strict scrutiny, which the law cannot survive because it is far broader than necessary to achieve its stated purpose of protecting children.
To avoid Supreme Court precedent supporting parents rights, Lagoa turned to one of the most bigoted appellate decisions of the century so far: 2004s Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children and Families. In Lofton, the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida law barring gay peoplewhom the court dubbed practicing homosexualsfrom adopting children. The Lofton court held that this ban, which has since been overturned, served the states overriding interest in placing children with a secure family environment, which gay people were less likely to provide. Homosexuals, the court continued, are unable to provide the stable and nurturing environment for the education and socialization of children that heterosexuals can. So Florida had legitimate cause to prevent gay people from shaping adoptive childrens psychology, character, and personality. The state also had rational reasons to conclude that gay parents could inhibit their childrens sexual development throughout pubescence and adolescence.
InfoView thread info, including edit history TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can) BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks) 0 replies, 577 views