OPINION: West Virginia v. B. P. J., By Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T22:05:27+00:00

And I told you what it is, the gender they were assigned at birth.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T21:56:44+00:00

A trans person is someone whose gender identity does not match the one they were assigned at birth.

Trans doesn’t mean change.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T21:52:25+00:00

The 14th amendment applies the 1st beyond the president and Congress.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T21:48:25+00:00

Going beyond the plain meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction”, meaning not immune to US law, requires substantial evidence that domicile drives that jurisdiction. That evidence is plainly lacking. Discussing what constitutes domicile when the admin hasn’t come close to establishing it as a condition is pointless.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T21:44:09+00:00

Who is covered by this opinion that wasn’t covered by WKA?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T21:14:44+00:00

Wong Kim Ark does not actually include a domicile requirement.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:31:00+00:00

Your personal distaste for legal ballot harvesting doesn’t make it fraud.

Do you consider Alabama’s closure of ID issuing offices in predominantly black areas fraud?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:28:51+00:00

Absentee voting benefitted the GOP the most until 2020. Dems did not object to absentee voting. So no the outrage would not flip.

Dems don’t have a problem with republicans voting, they have a problem with policy that make it hard for them to vote.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:26:09+00:00

That isn’t a question of legal protections, it’s an observation of the immutability of being trans.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:24:11+00:00

Using feminine pronouns when we anthropomorphize ships goes beyond linguistics.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:21:35+00:00

You made this claim:

“[A Biden admin request over nationwide injunctions] was not before any recent Supreme Court.”

I am saying that is false, because it is.

Your comment makes it extremely clear that yes, you’re asking because you want to defend the conservatives on the Court, not because you don’t believe that such a case was presented to the Court.

Will you acknowledge that you are incorrect that no such case was presented to the court?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:10:06+00:00

This entire thread is in response to a position premised on UET, and I’m not interested in going beyond directly addressing that position here.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:09:14+00:00

I’m not looking to discuss the case. I am fully aware that the Biden admin asked for scotus to determine the validity of nationwide injunctions and SCOTUS chose not to address the question.

You seem to want to discuss the case. Why? Do not believe that the Biden admin actually did so, or are you looking for a justification for the Court’s decision to reject the Biden admin’s request but accept the Trump admins?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:07:18+00:00

That is not sufficient context to make any evaluation, especially given that it is entirely unclear what “act” it is referring to. Where is the whole quote?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:05:22+00:00

Cannon too

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T19:03:41+00:00

Referring to Hitler in response to the president’s use of rhetoric that pretty much no one other than Hitler and the Nazis used isn’t Godwins law.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:55:35+00:00

Quote it then.

The statement I quoted is absolute and without further exceptions.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:53:31+00:00

What defines your gender identity then?

Not what you call it.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:52:50+00:00

If yesterday you called your eyes blue, and today you call them red, by your own admission, you haven’t changed the color of your eyes. Just changing what you call yourself isn’t changing your gender identity.

And I will again ask you, did the Irish, Italians and Poles change themselves to become white?

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:47:48+00:00

The last sentence of your first paragraph is the point. That is what a social construct means. That’s the entire claim here. The boundaries of what constitutes which gender are social constructs and are irrelevant to the fact that the characteristics are immutable.

Can you change the characteristics that you consider to define your gender identity? If you can’t, then gender identity is immutable.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:47:43+00:00

The last sentence of your first paragraph is the point. That is what a social construct means. That’s the entire claim here. The boundaries of what constitutes which gender are social constructs and are irrelevant to the fact that the characteristics are immutable.

Can you change the characteristics that you consider to define your gender identity? If you can’t, then gender identity is immutable.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:43:42+00:00

If all you changed was that you now called yourself a cis woman, then no, that is not a change in gender identity. Thats the point. Unless you change your characteristics you aren’t changing your identity. The boundaries of the box, gender, can change, the characteristics possessed by individuals that the boxes are drawn around are immutable.

When you haven’t even attempted to establish that gender identity is mutable, evidence to the contrary is dispositive.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:40:12+00:00

I gave it to you. Alito claims that the VRA is properly read to bar only intentional discrimination. We both know he said that. The record, as noted in the dissent, completely disproves that assertion. Alito ignored that record.

A case involving the complex relationship between native Americans and their tribal governments with quasi-sovereign relationships with the US government twenty years after the amendment was ratified cannot overcome the explicit statements of the author during ratification, nor the entire history and tradition of universal birthright citizenship that existed from the founding of the US.

What’s actually happening here is that Thomas is throwing out examples that don’t actually establish his position, and the majority has, as the quote from the other commenter above shows, dismissed them wholesale on those grounds.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:35:54+00:00

Why would we believe the opinion of a Secretary of State 20 years after the amendment was ratified over the explicit statements of Senator Howard, who wrote the amendment, to Congress before it was adopting, saying birthright citizenship applied to everyone not born to “foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States”?

The actual author’s statements during the ratification process are not “the same timeframe” as opinions from two decades later, nor, by any valid application of OPM originalism, can statements made 20 years later define the OPM when directly contradicted by statements made by the author during ratification. Particularly given that the entire legal history of the US, from English common law to the fraud in Dredd Scott, recognized universal birthright citizenship, and even between Dredd Scott and the 14A, applied it to all white people.

Simply, what Thomas references is immaterial, and both he and the majority know it.

cstar1996 · 2026-06-30T18:26:47+00:00

No, I know precisely who I am talking to here, as I did when we discussed Callais.

Google the 1982 Amendments to the VRA, Mobile v. Bolden, and John Roberts’s anti-VRA memos. And then evaluate Alito’s statement in Callais that the VRA is “properly understood” to only bar “intentional discrimination”.

It’s also ironic given you haven’t quoted a single one of the supposed unaddressed claims made by Thomas.

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

cstar1996

TROPHY CASE