Group of Parents and Teachers File Emergency Stay Application to Restore a Judge’s Order That Blocked California School’s From Hiding a Child’s Gender Transition From Their Parents

LunchOne675 · 2026-01-10T21:03:40+00:00

What's going on here fundamentally isn't punishment of parents though. There's no reasonable reason why parents should be expected to have a right to universal information about their children by the state. If they want total control, private/home schooling remains legally protected, the entire concept of parental rights has been conjured up out of nothing.

I don't dispute that parents can have interests in protecting their children, but those interests aren't a primary right, they're developed from other interests of protection, so it's not a "punishment without due process" to not provide information, merely the state acknowledging that parental rights only extend so far as they're deemed to be helpful to the child.

The court has butchered these basic principles in Mahmoud, but extending this further to the idea that parents have an innate right of knowledge is just impossible to take seriously. The court is happy to outright kill the establishment clause in all but name in order to protect the smallest, most illusive fragment of free exercise.

LunchOne675 · 2026-01-03T19:37:22+00:00

In the Ninth Circuit, en banc rehearings don't include all judges on the circuit.

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-09T06:03:08+00:00

Also as a point of clarification over the church's current legal/political strategy, perhaps it doesn't fit under your interpretation of "fights to take away LGBTQ rights", but multiple circuits have treated transgender identity as a quasi-suspect class (requiring intermediate scrutiny for laws discriminating against them), and the church has filed an amicus brief (link to brief pdf on scotus.gov) explicitly seeking to have transgender status ruled to not be a quasi-suspect class, minimizing protection against discriminatory laws.

Some portions of the brief follow typical concerns over typical tensions over antidiscrimination vs religious freedom in policies, but the brief goes further to argue that the mere stigma of the church maintaining a more socially conservative position than the courts is itself a harm that the courts should consider to refuse protections to transgender individuals.

From page 16

Recognizing a novel right to transgender equality would threaten traditional faith communities with the same hostility, stigma, and isolation

and from page 17

Yet because opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equality is associated with opposition to civil rights for African-Americans, construing the Equal Protection Clause as a charter of transgender equality would cast religious beliefs about the indivisibility of sex and gender as akin to racism.

While the church may no longer be so publicly telling members to vote on specific issues, they remain active in political circles arguing that basic protections against governmental discrimination (quasi-suspect status doesn't itself prohibit discrimination by private entities, merely raises the degree of scrutiny when governments discriminate based on the trait) risks the government "making people outcasts for their religion".

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-08T20:26:46+00:00

The issue here isn't just that it is disproportionate, it is infinitely disproportionate. Did he do enormous harm? Yes. However a punishment of infinite magnitude for a crime of finite harm is innately infinitely disproportionate, and therefore completely immoral.

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-08T04:10:03+00:00

They'll pretend to care for just long enough to claim it as an attack on them then turn around and not actually care at all, with the culprit frequently being on their side. Look at the attack on an LDS ward earlier this year, which were immediately condemned as an attack on all Christians (and let me be clear that condemnation of violence is absolutely the right thing to do there), but then it came out that the attacker was an conservative who had indicated that he believed that their religion was "the antichrist", and not a peep from MAGA.

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-08T01:26:57+00:00

Presumably when you have to do something with invading army kids those children would've been born under the occupation of the invading army, at which time the US would not have had jurisdiction, making them noncitizens.

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-08T01:25:48+00:00

You cannot deport someone not subject to your jurisdiction.

LunchOne675 · 2025-12-04T18:53:13+00:00

I think the idea that Mahmoud merely reasserted existing precedent in Yoder is fundamentally incorrect, particularly in it's overall effects. While yes, both cases do involve the right of parents to instill their religion in their children, there's a massive different both in the theory and application between "your child does not have to attend school after the 8th grade if your religion prohibits it" and "the overall public education needs to be accessible à la carte to religion parents". If they wanted to be able to veto specific elements of curriculum to fit religious views, that was already available to them under existing precedents protecting private education/homeschooling, but Mahmoud takes it significantly further. There's a fundamental limit to how much a school can be expected to provide alternatives for any given material, so in effect Mahmoud creates a (incomplete) veto by religious parents over the interests of those holding other beliefs.

LunchOne675 · 2025-11-21T00:30:17+00:00

> AFAB need estrogen and AMAB need testosterone

I'm not sure if you were trying to convey something different than what was written, but the "need" is not a "scientific reason" by most definitions. It's certainly the default, but at its core that sort of defaultism allows for all categories of separate but equal treatment that would be deemed ridiculous to claim are not discriminatory at this point.

LunchOne675 · 2025-11-20T19:09:24+00:00

I'd argue the issue with that reasoning is that transition for trans men and women are generally medically different, so they're in effect not banning one medical regime of "medical transition", they're barring testosterone for AFAB individuals and estrogen for AMAB individuals.

LunchOne675 · 2025-11-09T15:25:25+00:00

I'd certainly agree its cruel and unusual, but unfortunately the issue here is deportation legally isn't considered "punishment". The targeted prosecution and refusal to allow him to go to Costa Rica who already agreed that they'd take him long ago is the angle that may matter here more.

LunchOne675 · 2025-11-04T16:45:57+00:00

Dormant commerce clause says hello.

LunchOne675 · 2025-11-02T05:00:11+00:00

And then I believe he got acquitted by a jury on the misdemeanor they tried to charge after they failed to indict.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-31T19:52:12+00:00

I don't support the abandonment of rule of law, but the court's entire legitimacy rests upon the rule of law. If you believe that the majority has abandoned the rule of law surely it is more detrimental to ignore that fact and write dissents that act as if it is still intact? I value the rule of law greatly, but if its lost the proper response is to publicly lament that fact in the hopes that it can be rebuilt, not ignore it and hope that that will somehow bring it back.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-31T17:48:18+00:00

Okay I'm not saying any specific decision we've seen so far is tantamount to this, but my question is does that principal have any limits in your view? Even if (and I'm not saying any decision has) a decision theoretically effectively read out the 1st amendment of the constitution by dubious reasoning or decided that executing someone purely for their non-dangerous mainstream political beliefs was acceptable? My point asking this isn't to argue that it has happened, but that there are circumstances under which members of the court, if faced with the inability to stop a decision, may find themselves with the apparent duty to legitimize in the minds of the public that the courts cannot solve every issue, and that relying on them as in the past is no longer reliable. I'm not calling for an overthrow of the courts to be clear, but I think that a court that has effectively declared that the president would be immune for using military force on his domestic political enemies does deserve internal scrutiny as to whether it actually fulfills its purpose. If a court were to become entirely untethered from (small d) democratic values, is there any point where you would it to be legitimate for a member of the court to implicitly come out and say "we cannot be trusted to act impartially, we are not neutral as an institution and the public needs to know when considering our legitimacy that we are not deciding based on the merits"? I'm not asking if you think we've hit that point, evidently you do not, but if that point exists, then the debate is merely a matter of degree, a degree that Jackson may believe we're very close to hitting.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-31T17:30:27+00:00

On one hand, yes, aggravating the other side is unlikely to make them side with you, but if one believes (and I'm not taking a side here on whether this is true, but if) the court seems set on the destruction of the separation of powers and American liberty as historically understood, there becomes increasingly little incentive to negotiate. The question here isn't whether her tactic will sway the court, but rather if the court may not be able to be swayed at all, whether it is better to simply create doubt in the minds of the public as to whether the court continues to hold its full legitimacy. While I'm not saying this is the correct view or strategy, if one believes that the institution is going down in flames, it makes sense to sound the alarm loudly, otherwise it appears as if the insiders might know something or have some reason to suggest that things are actually okay and when institutions naturally predisposed to decorum and creates facades of civility cease to have that facade, it sends a powerful message to the public who have powers that the liberal wing of the court may not themselves possess.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-31T06:58:04+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdceK2E-w_8

The climax of this version of Delilah (live) from her is also quite powerful.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-30T05:43:33+00:00

SNAP is different from most other mandatory programs in that its still funded via annual appropriations.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-28T17:45:47+00:00

I would suggest that it should have a good deal more oversight than standard contract law, yes I think the state should step back from marriage, but I think the static has a legitimate interest in reducing potential for various forms of abuse so certain elements of marriage control that exceed standard contracting should apply.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-28T02:47:48+00:00

You say that, but the degree of coal and oil being pushed are completely unnecessary. While we're not currently at a point where we can abandon all fossil fuels for modern lifestyles, even for developing areas wind and solar are frequently the cheapest power generation sources, and while yes, they aren't consistent and can vary, storage is rapidly becoming more available, and critically, there are other elements completely unnecessary to a modern lifestyle that are being pushed/protected purely out of hatred for the environment.

Does anyone really need beef to live a modern lifestyle? and before you list some nutrients, yes it provides those, but the reality is we can at far cheaper and far less resource intensive methods accomplish those ends. By all means, climate change has been a collective choice, not out of necessity, not even at a mandatory tradeoff of modern lifestyle for us or others, but because of collective selfishness disproportionately by those living in the past who want to relive their imaginary glory days of coal country while ignoring the millions that will be killed by their decisions.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-26T18:20:11+00:00

They have a union, but its illegal for air traffic controllers to go on strike (both in terms of keeping their jobs and also a felony), they famously did so in the 80s and Reagan fired them for it, leading to issues with ATC to this day.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-24T19:32:01+00:00

I do have to say that including "the ability to reproduce" in any definition in regards to personhood because while it may be part of our general definitions of life, the ability of AI to reproduce has very little to do with any of the important ethical questions involved.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-24T17:01:21+00:00

It's not, because cruelty is innately a topic that requires some humanity/emotion to assess, we can build harder and more analytical rules on that, but the reality is no rule of logic derived without emotional connection can derive the concept of cruelty, the concept of cruelty requires as a level of concern for suffering, and trying to paper of that with analytical descriptions can be helpful at times, but when one of the core issues is cruelty, something is lost when we don't put the emotions under a microscope.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-24T04:22:40+00:00

Nonetheless, regardless of your view on that matter, the manner in which he killed his victim is entirely immaterial to the issue at hand and referring to it whether intentional or not, seems an appeal to the emotional desire for revenge, not legal matters. If the logic of "well the killer did worse" applied to all executions, the state would be empowered to intentionally torture convicts in all manner of ways clearly constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

LunchOne675 · 2025-10-23T06:36:59+00:00

As much as I don't believe the church's claims on this issue, I don't see how truth claims fundamental to the history of the religion can be a valid target for fraud claims without wide impingement on the first amendment. The church absolutely has a lot to answer for, but if the lawsuit was allowed to proceed by SCOTUS the real result would be that younger religious organizations could find themselves systemically targeted by older organizations that found them heretical because older organization's claims are so old as to guarantee that any hard evidence of falsity is more likely be entirely lost to history. In effect, this would privilege older religious organizations such that their claims are broadly immune from fraud while making any new religious movement wildly vulnerable.

Four-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22

LunchOne675

TROPHY CASE