Judge Hinkle perpetuates lie about sex-based protection contained in Fourteenth Amendment

[johnwk]

.
In Judge Hinkle’s written opinion we find: “The ban on treating minors with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”.

The truth is the clause in question (“No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”) requires an equal application of the laws when applied to “any person” in its jurisdiction. Its text does not, nor was it ever intended to, forbid distinctions in law based upon sex. This is the real “elephant” in the room contrary Judge Hinkle’s pontificated “elephant in the room”, and his adolescent charge of “bigotry” which he banters in his written opinion.

The irrefutable fact is, Judge Hinkle embraces and perpetuates the subjugation of the Fourteenth Amendment's limitations by pretending it is a bar to distinctions in state laws based upon sex.

As judge Hinkle wrote in his opinion . . . "Any proponent of the challenged rule and statute should put up or shut up."


So, Judge Hinkle, what have I posted with reference to the Fourteenth Amendment's text or legislative intent, that is inaccurate? How about you, now putting up or shutting up?

.

JWK

 

[scruffy]

Judges can be just as stupid as the next guy

 

[excalibur]

Judges can be just as stupid as the next guy.

Except, their stupid rulings can have far-reaching effects.

The guy is a clown, and his ruling, boiled down, would ban age restrictions on sex, meaning pedophiles could claim 14th Amendment protections.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Judge probably identifies as a MAP

 

[excalibur]

Since c.1940 the courts have done great damage to the body politic by the insane ways they have [ab]used the 14th Amendment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.
In Judge Hinkle’s written opinion we find: “The ban on treating minors with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”.

The truth is the clause in question (“No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”) requires an equal application of the laws when applied to “any person” in its jurisdiction. Its text does not, nor was it ever intended to, forbid distinctions in law based upon sex. This is the real “elephant” in the room contrary Judge Hinkle’s pontificated “elephant in the room”, and his adolescent charge of “bigotry” which he banters in his written opinion.

The irrefutable fact is, Judge Hinkle embraces and perpetuates the subjugation of the Fourteenth Amendment's limitations by pretending it is a bar to distinctions in state laws based upon sex.

As judge Hinkle wrote in his opinion . . . "Any proponent of the challenged rule and statute should put up or shut up."


So, Judge Hinkle, what have I posted with reference to the Fourteenth Amendment's text or legislative intent, that is inaccurate? How about you, now putting up or shutting up?

.

JWK

“The ban on treating minors with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”.

The ban on letting minors drink alcohol, smoke, drive, sign contracts, own guns and vote violates the 14th Amendment.

DURR

 

[johnwk]

“The ban on treating minors with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause”.

The ban on letting minors drink alcohol, smoke, drive, sign contracts, own guns and vote violates the 14th Amendment.

DURR

As asserted by authoritarian, constitution violating, judges and Justices, but allowed by the Tenth Amendment and the reserved powers of the States and people therein.

JWK

Our sexual deviant crowd detests people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.






.

 

[johnwk]

Since c.1940 the courts have done great damage to the body politic by the insane ways they have [ab]used the 14th Amendment.

And that abuse is pretending that the Fourteenth Amendment's text, or documented legislative intent, prohibits state laws which make distinctions based upon sex, e.g., a state law prohibiting men using women's bathrooms.

Judge Hinkle needs to follow his own advice and put up or shut up!

 

[scruffy]

All this will do is bump it up to the Supreme Court.

In... y'know... 5 years or something.

 

[johnwk]

All this will do is bump it up to the Supreme Court.

In... y'know... 5 years or something.

Then the courts would be negligent and in allowing child mutilations in that time period.