There’s only one of me, to the best of my knowledge, so I don’t know what you mean by “you people.” And parental discipline, near as I can tell, has precisely fuck-all to do with the conversation. So maybe you’d care to elaborate?
The same way you knew that you were a boy* at that age.
*An assumption that you identify as male–I have you in my head as male, but I don’t know if you’ve ever explicitly said so. Apologies if I got it wrong.
Yes. “Equal protection,” is a term of art in case law that does not literally mean equal protection for all citizens. Instead, it means that when the government treats citizens unequally, it must have some justification, and the requisite justification varies based on the classifications created – that it, if the government treats 16 year old a differently from 18 year older, or persons holding dental licenses differently than non-licensed people, then it typically need only show some rational relationship between the disparate treatment and a legitimate government goal. When the government seeks to treat persons of different races differently, it must answer a far more strict standard: is the disparate treatment narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government goal?
Phantom menace?
http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
Phantom menace. The state Human Rights Commission has already investigated that incident (pdf)and determined that his acts were not permissible under our state’s transgender protection laws.
This is little more an example of small-minded bigots attempting to troll the state and make life harder for vulnerable people by attempting to “prove” the existence of a threat that exists only in their own minds.
…Right, I get this. In other words, you’re not violating equal protection if there’s a reason to treat people unequally.
Edit: maybe the problem is on my end, thinking that using language from the 14th amendment automatically implicates it. If that’s the problem, I apologize: my entire point is tied up in laws that violate the 14th amendment, and I thought my post made that sufficiently clear, but it may not have.
This is a bit of a semantic snag here. I’m perfectly happy to concede that if you’re treating people unequally because doing so is the best way to satisfy a legitimate government interest, it’s okay.
But Bricker said,
My disagreement is with “only that.”
By analogy, there may be a pervasive problem that another bill would fix: crime in Chicago. The state may decide that, because black people are convicted more often of drug possession, they should pass a law that black people must not be out on the street past 10 pm. In this case, the state is addressing a pervasive problem. However, there would be a good reason not to make it law, namely, it denies black people equal protection under the law.
In this case, Bricker is correct that the law is not addressing a pervasive problem. However, I posit that, much like curfewing black people and not white people, it treats people unequally, and that that is another good reason not to make it law.
Pointing out that other laws treat, say, 17-year-olds differently from 18-year-olds is not relevant to the question of whether 14th-amendment violations are a good reason to veto a law.
No. The concern about Voter ID is not “demonstrably incorrect.” The concern is: what happens in the rare event of an ultra-close election?
I mean, surely you don’t claim there are never fraudulent votes in any number, right? The point I assume you defend is that their number is vanishingly small: if an election with 2 million votes is decided by 20,000 votes, it’s not relevant whether the “real” margin was 19,989 or 20,011.
But what if the election is decided by four votes?
More to the point: how can you you say that weighing that risk is somehow wrong?
I don’t think Bricker is saying that there is no other reason to veto the bill. I think he is saying the fact that it is a solution in search of a problem is reason enough to veto. In fairness, if that is his meaning he probably could have expressed it better. But presumably he will clarify for you.
If that’s what he meant, then I don’t disagree with him. But it sounded to me as though he were saying that there was no other good reason to veto it.
I wrote poorly. If the bill creates a new problem while solving the first it is necessary to weigh the harms. So of course you are correct.
Interesting that voter I.D. laws were brought up in connection with legislation that does not “address a pressing issue”.
It seems that the Governor of South Dakota doesn’t apply that standard to mandatory voter identification.
"Question topic: People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Daugaard: Strongly Disagree"
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Daugaard.htm
So much for consistency and high conservative principles. Looks to me like Daugaard took an easy way out on the “gender” bill.
Note: South Dakota has a so-called non-strict photo I.D. law for voters. If you can’t present a photo I.D., you can sign an affidavit that you’re a legal voter, and theoretically could be prosecuted for perjury if you’re not. Not a terrible-sounding law, and I don’t see a problem with needing to have a photo I.D. to vote, as long as the state makes it cheap and easy to obtain.
Daugaard’s views on voter ID laws do not necessarily mean he would not veto such a bill. Was it passed when he was governor?
Are these the necessary preconditions to determine what constitutes a “female gender identity”?
Regards,
Shodan
As I explained above, there is no inconsistency.
I’m not interested in establishing a cadre of Bathroom Police to card everyone at the door and verify that they ought to be permitted to use that particular bathroom. Are you?
I remain skeptical.
Um, no.
You postulated that voter ID laws might be justified on the basis of a “rare event” (a super-close election where fraud supposedly could be prevented by such laws). But postulated harm from a transgender intrusion in a locker room, an event likely to be about as rare, does not in your view justify passing legislation to prevent it.
I think it just kills Bricker to have to acknowledge that “principled conservatives” can get entangled in massive inconsistency/hypocrisy just like other folks. Like when he flew into a tizzy over criticism of William Bennett, self-appointed Guardian of Morals, who was revealed to have lost millions of dollars gambling in Vegas.
This goes for Voter ID laws too, right?
No, that’s an inaccurate summary.
The harm from transgender “intrusion,” is not real.
The damage from an ultra-close election in a jurisdiction without Voter ID is rare, but real. You’re trying to compare rarity to rarity. I am comparing rare harm to no harm.
No. As I explained then, and will explain again, there was nothing immoral about losing millions of dollars gambling, especially when the losses were a small fraction of his income.
Now, if Bennett had inveighed against gambling in any way, then of course you’d have a point…but he never did. So the argument against Bennett was that he moralized about other people’s behavior, and that other people who also moralize are against gambling, therefore Bennett is a hypocrite. But of course that’s not inconsistent or hypocritical on Bennett’s part. Hypocrisy and inconsistency arise when you espouse a position and then act privately in the opposite manner. Bennett’s a gambler who never spoke out against gambling. How, specifically, is he a hypocrite or inconsistent?
There is a problem that Voter ID will help fix.