Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,659
- 651
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Hegseth requires testosterone deficiency screening for service members over 30
- Thread starter Say it aint so
- Start date
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,659
- 651
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Are you arguing that they can't supply them? If the logistics allow the military to supply them, they should just supply them. This directly makes any argument of not being able to supply them irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Counter take. Being a judge they have a better understanding of the legal ramifications of making one medical course available while denying a similar course to others based on protected class and they would like the administration, whom have shown themselves no stranger to overt bias against certain groups, to explain why.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Or...perhaps being a prominent LGBTQ judge (the first ever for the DC district) who hasn't missed an opportunity to rule against the administration whenever they can (and has donated tens of thousands of dollars to democratic campaigns, candidates, and causes in the past), calls into question the impartiality of the judge on such matters?
Ana Reyes was one of the Biden appointees during the time when he was still filling out his "appointments from marginalized groups" bingo card.
Upvote
0
Got evidence of lack of impartiality the DC courts should know about or are we sticking with broad brush libel?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,422
- 18,961
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not familiar with that court. Is it like FISA court or that alien terrorist deportation court that was just activated?
Oh, no! Biden appointed qualified people who were not White/Male/Straight/Christian after the Trump had a "select at least 3" policy for most judges.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
A judge doesn't have to be any of those things to be a good judge, but a judge is supposed to be impartial, so when a judge invoked "hmmm... so how is this different than gender transition hormones for trans men" in a case about doing testosterone screening" it calls that into question.
When certain things intersect with a deeply held ideology for a person, it becomes difficult to be impartial on certain cases.
Same reason why you wouldn't want an overtly pro-gun judge (who's personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to pro-gun causes/candidate) presiding over a case seeking to determine the constitutionality of a regional gun restriction.
Certain judges/courts having preestablished biases on certain subjects is well-known. Hence the reason why crafty lawyers engage in so much "forum shopping" when filing these sorts of legal challenges. If you want to get a conservative win, you do it in the eastern Texas district, if you want to get a liberal win, you do it in the DC district.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well sure... if a female gets tested and is at 4 instead of 15-70 range, yeah a little boost is understandable (and probably medically recommended as that'll reduce the risk of bone fractures)
But that's still different than a female wanting to boost up to 700 so they can grow a beard and have a deeper voice in order to try to present as male.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
As I mentioned in my response to the other poster, certain districts having certain leanings is pretty well understood, hence the reason why crafty lawyers engage in forum shopping when filing certain types of legal challenges.
Judge Shopping, Explained
A quirk in the case-assignment rules for some federal court districts allows litigants to choose their judge.
In some districts, you can basically narrow it down to 1 or 2 judges you can get.
In the case of the DC district, it's a popular spot because virtually any federal agency challenge can be filed there if the lawyers so choose, and they often do.
It's currently comprised of 11 Democratic appointees, and 4 Republican appointees, so if you're challenging a Republican administration, your odds are good that you'll get a sympathetic ear there.
Likewise, it's no coincidence that whenever conservatives were trying to challenge things from the Biden admin, they were picky friendly districts
Republicans Find Home Court for Biden Suits in Western Louisiana
Republican attorneys general are precisely targeting federal courthouses in western Louisiana where they see the best chance of winning. Solid conservative majorities now control the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which hears appeals from Louisiana, and the US Supreme Court. As a...
Upvote
0
Continuing with broad brush libel it is.As I mentioned in my response to the other poster, certain districts having certain leanings is pretty well understood, hence the reason why crafty lawyers engage in forum shopping when filing certain types of legal challenges.
Judge Shopping, Explained
A quirk in the case-assignment rules for some federal court districts allows litigants to choose their judge.www.brennancenter.org
In some districts, you can basically narrow it down to 1 or 2 judges you can get.
In the case of the DC district, it's a popular spot because virtually any federal agency challenge can be filed there if the lawyers so choose, and they often do.
It's currently comprised of 11 Democratic appointees, and 4 Republican appointees, so if you're challenging a Republican administration, your odds are good that you'll get a sympathetic ear there.
Likewise, it's no coincidence that whenever conservatives were trying to challenge things from the Biden admin, they were picky friendly districts
Republicans Find Home Court for Biden Suits in Western Louisiana
Republican attorneys general are precisely targeting federal courthouses in western Louisiana where they see the best chance of winning. Solid conservative majorities now control the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which hears appeals from Louisiana, and the US Supreme Court. As a...news.bloomberglaw.com
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
How is it broad brush libel?
Which part of what I said do you think what not factual?
Judge who blocked Trump’s Haitian deportations bankrolled Dems — including Biden who let migrants in
Biden appointed Judge Ana Reyes in February 2023 — one month after his admin started letting up to 30,000 Haitian migrants per month into the US.
This is the same judge who's tried to block the administration each time they've gotten the chance, and they have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats and Democratic causes and campaigns.
During a speech accepting the an award from Woman’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia’s Woman Lawyer of the Year award, Reyes said she was privileged to represent asylum seekers and thanked lawyers at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stating it was an honor "fighting for the rights of refugees in the United States." Reyes said in the same speech that she deferred law school for a year to work for the Feminist Majority Foundation. Reyes said in her Senate questionnaire that she served on the board for the group from "2014-present". The questionnaire also acknowledges that she was a panelist in a 2021 discussion called "Did You Really Just Say That? Recognizing and Managing Microaggressions."
Additionally, Reyes was a frequent contributor to Defeat By Tweet, a Democratic-aligned super PAC, which Influence Watch described as a group that "raises money for liberal groups in swing states each time President Donald Trump makes a post to his controversial Twitter account."
This is not an unbiased judge, and given that she's a member of the LGBTQ community (and was praised for being the first LGBTQ person who hold that judicial seat), she's certainly not going to be unbiased matters relating those policies.
It'd be like appointing a longtime NRA donor (and vocal opponent of gun control) as a judge, and expecting them to give an unbiased ruling on gun control.
Why is that people only seem to detect/acknowledge judicial bias when it comes to SCOTUS, but when it comes to judges that are a level or two down from it, they don't want to entertain the notion?
Since all people have biases that influence their decisions (and judges are people), not sure why it's considered to be so offensive to point it out.
This isn't a conservative or centrist judge, this is a very left-leaning judge. And being very left leaning and a member of the LGBTQ community means that she's going to a specific perspective on these kinds of matters.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,422
- 18,961
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What does that have to do with my comment about your Biden "filling out his "appointments from marginalized groups" bingo card." jab concerning the judge?
(And that was after you accused the judge of ruling against Trump at all possible opportunities. SMH. There are about a dozen judges in that district along that have ruled against Trump over and over and over, including judges he appointed. Methinks it is the litigant, not the judge that is the source of such outcomes.)
That was in a case about Trump's transgender solider ban, and she was absolutely correct. It is rather hypocritical of Trump/Hegseth to ban those taking sex hormones for that reason, but not for "low-T". It was relevant in her courtroom, but not here.
blah, blah, blah, mr. whataboutthat. There was ZERO reason for you to introduce some non-relevant thing that happened to reference this story. (If it was the other way around, it might be valid, but this was just ... squirrel!)
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Oh, because that's what happened... It was actually a Biden campaign promise about how he was promising to have the most diverse list of appointments and "firsts"
It's not hypocritical at all
For the same reason it's not hypocritical to support a US service member getting a rhinoplasty for correcting a breathing issue, but not supporting a government-funded nose job for cosmetic reasons.
It is relevant... when crafty lawyers want to challenge an executive action, they handpick a "friendly venue", that's not anything new. And yes, both sides do it (and I provided links demonstrating that to be the case)
A judge (who's been a member of multiple organizations with the exclusive aim of fighting against Trump) and who has donated thousands to his political opponents most certainly has a bias against his administration. No question about it.
To reiterate from my previous post:
Reyes was a frequent contributor to Defeat By Tweet, a Democratic-aligned super PAC, which Influence Watch described as a group that "raises money for liberal groups in swing states each time President Donald Trump makes a post to his controversial Twitter account."
If there was a legal challenge to an executive action with Biden administration, and it landed it the lap of a judge who was an active contributor to a group called "Defeat Sleepy Joe", you'd have a problem with that.
We're living in clown world...where people pretend to honestly not know the difference between correcting a legitimate hormone imbalance, and a sex change endeavor and claim "iTs tHe sAme tHIng!!!"
This is why the blue team lost in 2024.
What's next, claiming that a mastectomy to address stage 3 breast cancer is the same thing as the Elliot Page situation?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,422
- 18,961
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oh, my. You really do plan to die on this (mole)hill. SMH.
This afternoon I was thinking of some responses to you related to the qualifications and an overabundance of qualified people for competitive positions (perhaps you've never seen this in your career), but this "line of argument" is so tenuous that a single strand of spider silk has more tensile strength.
You can disagree with the judge if you like, but this is not the thread about the trans-soldier case. This is the thread about "low-T" Hegseth.
What? What? What? How is suing the federal government where the federal government is located "venue shopping"?
The case is titled "Talbott et al. v. Trump et al." with the lead plantiff having an address of "1600 Penn. Ave., Wash. DC" This is the court that covers the District of Columbia in federal suits. The courthouse is so close to WH that it is on the path taken from the WH to the Capitol for storming and other purposes.
You've not proven bias and it is too bad you don't realize that.
Are you watching it through a mirror?
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, are you laboring under the delusion that I actually think your position has enough validity that I'm going to debate it with you?How is it broad brush libel?
Which part of what I said do you think what not factual?
Judge who blocked Trump’s Haitian deportations bankrolled Dems — including Biden who let migrants in
Biden appointed Judge Ana Reyes in February 2023 — one month after his admin started letting up to 30,000 Haitian migrants per month into the US.nypost.com
This is the same judge who's tried to block the administration each time they've gotten the chance, and they have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats and Democratic causes and campaigns.
During a speech accepting the an award from Woman’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia’s Woman Lawyer of the Year award, Reyes said she was privileged to represent asylum seekers and thanked lawyers at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stating it was an honor "fighting for the rights of refugees in the United States." Reyes said in the same speech that she deferred law school for a year to work for the Feminist Majority Foundation. Reyes said in her Senate questionnaire that she served on the board for the group from "2014-present". The questionnaire also acknowledges that she was a panelist in a 2021 discussion called "Did You Really Just Say That? Recognizing and Managing Microaggressions."
Additionally, Reyes was a frequent contributor to Defeat By Tweet, a Democratic-aligned super PAC, which Influence Watch described as a group that "raises money for liberal groups in swing states each time President Donald Trump makes a post to his controversial Twitter account."
This is not an unbiased judge, and given that she's a member of the LGBTQ community (and was praised for being the first LGBTQ person who hold that judicial seat), she's certainly not going to be unbiased matters relating those policies.
It'd be like appointing a longtime NRA donor (and vocal opponent of gun control) as a judge, and expecting them to give an unbiased ruling on gun control.
Why is that people only seem to detect/acknowledge judicial bias when it comes to SCOTUS, but when it comes to judges that are a level or two down from it, they don't want to entertain the notion?
Since all people have biases that influence their decisions (and judges are people), not sure why it's considered to be so offensive to point it out.
This isn't a conservative or centrist judge, this is a very left-leaning judge. And being very left leaning and a member of the LGBTQ community means that she's going to a specific perspective on these kinds of matters.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Because in federal matters it can be challenged in any district practically speaking.
Where the plaintiff resides, where the defendant resides, where impacts occurred, the DC circuit, or any district where the agency has a presence.
In this case, the lead plaintiff is Nicolas Talbott.
Talbott is from Akron Ohio, and was serving in a reserve unit in Pennsylvania.
Northern District of Ohio and Western District of PA are both red-leaning (the latter is very red leaning; 8 of the 10 are Trump appointees)
DC is 11-4 for the blue team.
As I noted in the previous post, when the GOP was looking to go after the Biden admin, they were filing challenges in Louisiana and Texas.
While it's currently not against any rules to "strategically file this in a venue where we think we'll have the best chance of winning", we shouldn't pretend that that's not what it is when someone does it, and then prop up the "win" as evidence that it was some fair and impartial objective process.
Filing it in a place where you know you're likely going to win, and then have the talking point of "a federal judge even ruled on it and agree with our position" as some sort of gospel truth/validation.
The Judicial Conference of the United States recognized it as a problem, and were trying to push for the idea of random case assignment to prevent it in cases deemed to have high stakes nationwide implications...however, they stopped short of where they should in their guidance.
For cases that have implications that go well beyond just the district its filed in, it should be randomized even more, or have a multi-district judicial panel with regards to nationwide injunctions.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 31,317
- 17,790
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
If you're going to accuse me of libel, that should be substantiated.
Federal Judges having biases isn't a bug, it's a feature in the current system.
Hence the reason why presidents try to appoint friendly judges, and it's always a tug of war and political dust-up to get them in.
If every judge was impartial, then presidents would just draw names out of a hat and not particularly care who fills a vacancy.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Your turn, Atlanta!
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,422
- 18,961
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The last one is rather tenuous, what's left is four locations (more for multiple defendants are possible).
Do you think they could get this case to stick in the District of Montana or at the big blue courthouse (Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse - Wikipedia) and not get it tossed (at least to an appropriate district?
The plantiff gets the choice and judge selection is still a random draw. Even if you think it is all about who appointed the judge, you still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting screwed over in DDC.
Because they had plaintiffs there. At least one case I remember had problems when the local plantiff was dismissed and the judge had to decide if the venue was still appropriate.
I'm not going to discuss this because it is irrelevant to your unproved claim the judge in Talbott v. Trump is biased and that case has nothing to do with this low-T thread.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
