#Latest supreme court judgments

[judgementstoday]

Top Supreme Court Judgements Given In January 2023

The Supreme Court of India delivered verdicts on some of the most important cases in January 2023. Below is a list of all the decisions made by them:

January 18, 2023

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. The bench also ruled Supreme Court judgements that the PRAN can be used to draw pension and other benefits.

The court said it was impossible to provide pensions without a PRAN number, as it provides an easy way for people to access their accounts online.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. This means that all government employees have to have a PRAN. Otherwise, they will be unable to take their dues and pension payments.

The purpose of this number is to identify the employees and their entitlements, such as wages, leave benefits and provident fund contributions, which must be made available by employers within 30 days from their date of joining or even before their date of joining if required by them.

January 23, 2023

The Supreme Court overrules its Supreme Court cases in the Aruna Shanbaug case, saying passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

Supreme Court also says that even if a person is not physically fit to live, he should continue to live with dignity till his death occurs due to natural causes or the process of natural decay takes place without any medical intervention being required on his behalf of him.

Constitution Bench overrules the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case and says that passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

The Supreme Court overruled 2019 Supreme Court decisions in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which said passive euthanasia is unconstitutional. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

In February 2023, the court also ruled that medical professionals can refuse to treat patients on the grounds of conscience even if they work in government hospitals or other institutions funded by public money.

January 26, 2023

The Supreme Court holds that the Citizenship Amendment Act is constitutionally valid, but the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is unconstitutional.

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 was passed by Parliament and became an Act on January 26, 2019. It lays down a new legal framework for granting citizenship to Indian nationals who were born in Assam or any other state subject to conditions like having at least one parent who was an Indian citizen at the time of birth and having lived there for seven years continuously after attaining majority (18 years).

Three-judge bench rulings of the Supreme Court on the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens. It holds that the CAA is constitutionally valid, but NRC is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention, etc.

The Supreme Court also held that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is constitutionally valid but that the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is a list of all Indian citizens residing in Assam and other states, is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention and other violations of the right to liberty.

A group of petitioners challenged the NRC under Article 32, which prohibits violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Latest Supreme Court case was argued before a three-judge bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan along with Justice S A Bobde, who was assigned additional charge after Justice NV Ramana retired on December 31 last year.

January 31, 2023

A five-judge Constitutional bench was formed to decide on the Ayodhya land dispute, and this landmark decision by the Supreme Court was given on January 31, 2023.

The court ruled that dividing the land between two parties was impossible and directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

Judgment of Supreme Court on Ayodhya land dispute. The Latest Supreme Court judgments were pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The judgment was pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The court said Hindus should be given access to their religious places per their rights under Articles 14, 15(1) and 25 of the Constitution. It also noted that Muslims had been denied access over centuries at Ayodhya, but Hindus have been able to pray at other places without any hindrance from anyone.

A Lot of Big Issues were Resolved by the Supreme Court this Month.

The Supreme Court has been busy this month. It has resolved many big issues that were pending before the apex court. The Supreme Court has been very active in taking up matters that require immediate attention and are important for society or individuals who may be affected by them.

We hope you enjoyed reading these Latest Supreme Court rulings. If you want to read more about what happened in January 2023, check out blog posts and other content on the Judgements Today website.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mira Lazine at LGBTQ Nation:

Yesterday, nearly 200 Democrats and Republicans wrote amicus briefs asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of transgender rights in the upcoming L.W. v. Skrmetti case, which challenges Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. It is the first such case that the Supreme Court is hearing. “While the government has a role in keeping kids safe, that role is limited, and it does not justify the State second-guessing the judgments of parents acting in good faith who are best positioned to know what their children need,” the Republican signatories wrote in their brief. “States have no business overruling the decisions of fit parents who make an informed medical choice for their children that is supported by their doctors, by the medical profession more generally, by the children themselves, and by their conscience.”

The Republican brief was signed by numerous former and current Republican politicians and notable officials like Kentucky state Rep. Kim Banta; former U.S. Reps. Barbara Comstock (R-VA), Denver Riggleman (R-VA), and Deborah Price (R-OH); former Republican National Committee National Press Secretary Kirsten Kukowski; Republican campaign manager Colin Reed; and the late Sen. John McCain’s chief of staff and advisor Mark Salter. It was also notably signed by former Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the mother of Advocates for Trans Equality executive director Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen.

[...] 164 Democratic legislators signed their brief. The group was made up of 11 U.S. senators and 153 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and their brief stressed the discriminatory nature of Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban. “The current rash of bills targeting transgender people is merely the latest round of discrimination faced by transgender individuals. Lower courts have cataloged the “widespread private opprobrium and governmental discrimination” faced by transgender individuals,” they wrote in their brief. “But amici believe enough is enough. Tennessee has no ‘proper legislative end but to make [transgender adolescents] unequal to everyone else. This [Tennessee] cannot do.’—so the Court should reverse.” The politicians seen in this brief include Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), among others. They also argue that animosity towards trans people played a large role in passing Tennessee’s bill. They note that Tennessee is a “hotbed” for such animosity, having nearly twice as many anti-LGBTQ+ laws as any other state. They refer to hateful rhetoric from Tennessee politicians. The core argument in this brief is that there is a medical consensus that gender-affirming care is safe, medically necessary, and backed by numerous reputable organizations across the United States and the world. They argue Tennessee is discriminating against transgender individuals by blocking them from accessing safe and effective health care. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign both supported the brief.

Nearly 200 Democrats and Republicans filed amicus briefs in support of gender-affirming care in the United States v. Skrmetti (L.W. v. Skrmetti) case, with 164 of those being Democrats.

These are just two of the pro-trans amicus briefs filed in Skrmetti.

See Also:

Erin In The Morning: Families Split Apart: Families Fleeing Anti-Trans Laws File Amicus In Supreme Court Case

[mariacallous]

Europe’s most famous privacy activist, Max Schrems, landed another blow against Meta today after the EU’s top court ruled the tech giant cannot exploit users’ public statements about their sexual orientation for online advertising.

Since 2014, Schrems has complained of seeing advertising on Meta platforms targeting his sexual orientation. Schrems claims, based on data he obtained from the company, that advertisers using Meta can deduce his sexuality from proxies, such as his app logins or website visits. Meta denies it showed Schrems personalized ads based on his off-Facebook data, and the company has long said it excludes any sensitive data it detects from its advertising operations.

The case started with Schrems challenging whether this practice violated Europe’s GDPR privacy law. But it took an unexpected turn when a judge in his home country of Austria ruled Meta was entitled to use his sexuality data for advertising because he had spoken about it publicly during an event in Vienna. The Austrian Supreme Court then referred the case to the EU’s top court in 2021.

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) finally ruled that a person’s sexual orientation cannot be used for advertising, even if that person speaks publicly about being gay.

“Meta Platforms Ireland collects the personal data of Facebook users, including Mr. Schrems, concerning those users’ activities both on and outside that social network,” the court said. “With the data available to it, Meta Platforms Ireland is also able to identify Mr. Schrems’ interest in sensitive topics, such as sexual orientation, which enables it to direct targeted advertising at him.”

The fact that Schrems had spoken publicly about his sexual identity does not authorize any platform to process related data to offer him personalized advertising, the court added.

“Now we know that if you're on a public stage, that doesn't necessarily mean that you agree to this personal data being processed,” says Schrems, founder of the Austrian privacy group NOYB. He believes only a handful of Facebook users will have the same issue. “It's a really, really niche problem.”

The CJEU also ruled today Meta has to limit the data it uses for advertising more broadly, essentially setting ground rules for how the GDPR should be enforced. Europe’s privacy law means personal data should not be “aggregated, analyzed, and processed for the purposes of targeted advertising without restriction as to time and without distinction as to type of data,” the court said in a statement.

“It's really important to set ground rules,” says Katharina Raabe-Stuppnig, the lawyer representing Schrems. “There are some companies who think they can just disregard them and get a competitive advantage from this behavior.”

Meta said it was waiting for the CJEU’s judgment to be published in full. “Meta takes privacy very seriously and has invested over 5 billion Euros to embed privacy at the heart of all of our products,” Meta spokesperson Matt Pollard told WIRED. “Everyone using Facebook has access to a wide range of settings and tools that allow people to manage how we use their information."

Schrems has been a prolific campaigner against Meta since a legal challenge he made resulted in a surprise 2015 ruling invalidating a transatlantic data transfer system over concerns US spies could use it to access EU data. His organization has since filed legal complaints against Meta’s pay-for-privacy subscription model and the company’s plans to use Europeans’ data to train its AI.

“It's major for the whole online advertisement space. But for Meta, it's just another one in the long list of violations they have,” says Schrems, of this latest ruling. “The walls are closing in.”

[bills-bible-basics]

Gay and Lesbian Agenda Graphic 54 #LGBTQ #GayRights #Transgender Last Updated: Sept. 14, 2024 Whether some of you realize it or not, our nation has been slip sliding away for literally decades. However, the slide has been so slow, so gradual, and so subtle, that it wasn't until about halfway through the decade of the 2010s that a lot of people really began to wake up to what has been going on. However, sadly, by that time, it was already too late. Serious damage had already been done, and the victory had already been won. What has been going on since then basically amounts to mopping up exercises and tying up the loose ends. And boy are they doing a good job of it! So exactly what am I talking about? Well, do you remember a few decades ago -- back in the 1970s, actually -- when the LGBTQ+ crowd began claiming that they just wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they please without harassment or discrimination? Fast-forward fifty years, and you will see one long history of continuous lies, as they aggressively advanced their radical, extreme agenda. Then came gender reassignment surgery. Then came renegade, liberal circuit court judges who repeatedly overturned the will of the people. Then came renegade, liberal state legislatures who likewise overturned the will of the people. Then came civil unions. Then on June 26, 2015 came nationwide legalization of same-sex "marriage" by mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, despite the majority of the American people being opposed to it. Then came openly gay or lesbian bishops, pastors, priests, politicians, actors, sports figures, and everyone in between. Then came same-sex union blessings in some of the churches. Then came adoption of normal, healthy children by same-sex couples. Then came law suits against Christians and Conservatives who follow their hearts and their faith, and who oppose the LGBT lifestyle. Then came library books which openly promote the LGBT lifestyle. Then came gender-neutral bathrooms. Then came drag queens in our public schools during children's story hour. Then came teaching LGBT history in the classroom. Then came liberal parents who encourage their children to act and dress like the opposite sex. Then came hormone injections, puberty-blocking drugs in young children and double mastectomies on adolescent girls in order to alter their natural-born physiology so that they could appear outwardly the way that they were being made to feel inwardly by misguided adults and parents. Then came a gender-neutral option on birth certificates. Now they promote their ungodly lifestyle in every area of the entertainment and mass media industries where they possibly can, and constantly shove it in our faces. It is inescapable; unless one goes and lives in a cave. Now, in the latest news, according to an article in The Washington Times, some liberal-minded schools aren’t happy with just offering LGBTQ+ books in their school libraries. Now they want to FORCE young children with impressionable minds to read them, whether they like it or not. Yes, but of course, as they said, they just wanted to be left alone. Right? If you believe that nonsense, then you are seriously deceived! Thankfully, some parents are fighting back and taking it to the US Supreme Court. If the justices accept the case, let’s hope that the God-fearing justices on the bench will do what is right in the sight of God by giving these brave parents a victory. But concerning the LGBTQ+ agenda, well I say this: What about us? What about our right to live in a Bible-based, God-fearing society which honors and obeys God's natural order of things? How much longer will God endure this madness and rebellion against His holy Laws? When will His patience finally run out? When will His judgments begin to fall on the wicked who mock Him everyday, and who cast His Word to the ground? As the Apostle John wrote some two thousand years ago: "And‭ we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 1 John 5:19, KJV If John were alive today, oh how he would shudder! Article: "Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: A Warning to Modern Society": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/destruction-sodom-gomorrah-1.html Article: "Future of Same-Sex Marriage": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/future-of-same-sex-marriage-01.html Article: "The Gay and Lesbian Agenda: To the Point!": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/homosex1.html Article: "When Sin is No Longer a Sin": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/whensin1.html Article: "Queen James Bible: Blasphemous Abomination Exposed!": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/queen-james-bible-1.html "Homosexuality,Lesbianism, Bestiality, Transvestitism" KJV Bible Verse List: "https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse138.html Poetry regarding LGBTQ+ agenda: https://www.billkochman.com/Poetry/index.html#Gay-and-Lesbian-Agenda Graphics regarding LGBTQ+ agenda: https://www.billkochman.com/Graphics-Library/Gay-and-Lesbian-Agenda.html Non-BBB Article: The Gay Gene?": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/gaygene1.html Non-BBB Article: The Overhauling of Straight America": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/overhaul.html By the way, when we come to Jesus Christ and are reborn in the Spirit, the Scriptures make it very clear that we should undergo a spiritual and mental change in our lives, and that we should in fact become NEW CREATURES in Jesus Christ. We should NOT remain the same, living our same old life style, and living in our same old sins. That means that people who belong to the LGBTQ crowd should NOT continue practicing their sexual deviancy. Here is Scriptural proof: "God's Desire for Healing and Repentance" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse302.html "Old Man Versus New Man" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse165.html "Washed and Renewed Mind" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse071.html Article: "Don't Ever Underestimate Our Spiritual Enemy": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/DontUnderestimateOurEnemy1.html https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/gay-and-lesbian-agenda-graphic-54/?Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Agenda%20Graphic%2054

[follow-up-news]

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the U.S. following a lawsuit by women who had serious pregnancy complications. The unanimous ruling from the court, whose nine justices are all elected Republicans, is the latest decision to uphold Texas’ abortion ban, which critics say does not offer enough clarity over when exceptions are allowed. The court said that the exceptions, as written, are broad enough and that doctors would be misinterpreting the law if they declined to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the court wrote in the order signed by Republican Justice Jane Bland. Last summer, state District Judge Jessica Mangrum had granted a temporary injunction preventing Texas from enforcing the ban against doctors who in their “good faith judgment” ended a pregnancy that they determined was unsafe because of complications. But that was immediately blocked by an appeal from the Texas attorney general’s office to the state’s Supreme Court. More than 20 women in Texas joined the lawsuit, including Amanda Zurawski, who had been told that she had a condition that meant her baby would not survive. The Austin woman said she was forced to wait until she was diagnosed with a life-threatening case of sepsis before being provided an abortion.

[foreverlogical]

Well-known political expert, author, journalist, and CEO David Rothkopf is blasting conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court after their disastrous rulings last week, warning the Court is now a “threat to democracy” and suggesting some justices should be “considered” for impeachment.

Rothkopf, also a national security and foreign policy commentator, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and the author at least seven books, including American Resistance.

“Watching debates about Supreme Court here and elsewhere is the latest study in GOP efforts to normalize the unconscionable, the corrupt, and the contra-constitutional. This is a court in which a majority of those on the right took their seats under questionable circumstances,” Rothkopf said at the start of a lengthy thread on Twitter.

“Of them, a cloud of corruption hangs over Thomas & Alito. Kavanaugh took [his] seat despite allegations against him that were not properly investigated. Questions surround his payoff of personal debts. Gorsuch’s ascension is also clouded by questions surrounding Kennedy’s departure,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Treacherous March of Normalization’: ABC News Slammed for ‘Puff Piece’ Profile on Moms for Liberty

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for months over his relationship with billionaire GOP donor and businessman Harlan Crow, who reportedly has had business before the high court. The far-right wing justice and his wife, Ginni Thomas, (who has been accused of working to undermine the 2020 presidential election results,) may have received gifts totaling over $1 million in luxury vacations, travel, food, lodging, and clothing. Experts say Thomas was required to disclose portions of those gifts and that he did not.

Justice Samuel Alito is also the beneficiary of luxury travel, including a fishing trip to Alaska courtesy of another billionaire, and a trip to Rome during which he delivered a highly-criticized speech just days after delivering his opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. That trip was reportedly paid for by a religious liberty organization whose leader reportedly bought Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Indiana home.

Indeed, Rothkopf also skewers Justice Barrett, or at least her confirmation.

“Barrett received her seat in a rush to judgment that was unlike any we have ever seen and completely contrary to the way the GOP Senate treated prior Dem nominees (Garland). In the time since the majority took over, they have cast aside one core principle after another,” he observes.

READ MORE: ‘Tyranny’: Legal Expert Says Ruling in Favor of Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Makes It ‘Impossible’ to Respect Supreme Court

“Stare decisis went out the window. (Precedents were ignored without any sound justification.) Promises to honor past decisions as established law (like Roe) proved worthless. Past claims that the right valued originalism and condemned judicial activism were wholly ignored,” Rothkopf charges.

“When precedent went against them, absurd arguments drawing on ancient and irrelevant legal decisions were used to supersede the clear intent of the framers and decades, sometimes centuries of legal precedent.”

Last week, he says, we saw “a decision on affirmative action that ignored precedent, reality, and justice and contained, in its carve-out for military academies, a sub-decision that refuted the logic of the main opinion. In the case of reversing the Biden student loan decision,” Rothkopf writes, “a brand new doctrine was presented out of whole cloth. The decision regarding the ‘right’ of a website designer to refuse to do work for a ‘gay’ couple was based on both a lie and a hypothetical, should never have been taken on as a case and was grossly wrong on the law,” he adds.

Rothkopf appears to believe the conservative justices will not stop.

“These judges are acting with impunity because they believe a GOP controlled Senate will never challenge them and that a fundamental flaw in the way the Constitution grants power to underpopulated states assures that the document that was created to evolve never will,” he writes.

And he suggests some of the Supreme Court’s justices might need to be impeached.

“They also know that Senate rules essentially mean they can act with impunity despite their wholesale corruption and the fact that several of them should, in all likelihood, be seriously considered for impeachment.”

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams ‘Embarrassing’ SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Decision That Marks ‘Gays and Lesbians for Second-Class Status’

Pointing to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, he adds: “This is, as [she] has said a constitutional crisis. This is an illegitimate, rogue institution that is seeking to reverse decades of progress and impose the will of a white, wealthy, Christian, male, straight minority on the majority of Americans.”

“This is a moment that calls for action on the part of Democrats in power to use their ability to call Senate hearings and to challenge this extremist cluster of judicial terrorists wherever possible. But more than that, it demands absolutely clarity from the voting public,” he says.

Rothkopf warns conservatives in the Court are poised to do even more damage to democracy and the American people.

“Unless Democrats win the presidency, hold and increase their majority in the Senate and retake the House, this tiny band of malevolent and dangerous actors will gut many of the most important provisions of the past century and a half of American law.”

“They will destroy lives and put millions of others at risk. Next year’s election must be in part, about this threat to democracy even as it is also about the threat posed by GOP presidential candidates. Stop. Consider the consequences.”

He warns minority Americans will continue to see their civil rights “stripped” away.

“Consider the basic rights that will be stripped away from women, people of color, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, voters, and all who believe in the ideals that have guided American leaders as we have struggled to perfect our nation,” he says. “The only people who can save us are you and your fellow voters. The only way to do so is to mobilize, be active, donate to candidates and remain committed to defending our country against the threat posed by the MAGA GOP in our legislature and our judiciary. Starting right now.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

President Biden speaks on the border deal, promising to sign the agreed Senate measure as soon as it lands on his desk and making clear that the only thing that stands in the way of the border security revamp becoming law is Donald J Trump.

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 26, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 27, 2024

[There is a description of rape in paragraph 8.]

This afternoon a jury of nine Americans deliberated for less than three hours before it ordered former president Trump to pay writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of raping her in the 1990s. In May 2023 a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in an assault the judge said is commonly known as rape, and for defaming her. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million. 

Despite the jury’s 2023 verdict, Trump has continued to attack Carroll. Indeed, he repeatedly attacked her on social media posts even during this month’s trial. Today’s jury found that Trump acted with malice and awarded Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, $11 million in compensatory damages for a reputation repair program, and $7.3 million in compensatory damages outside of the reputation program.

Trump immediately called the jury verdict “Absolutely ridiculous!” and said he would appeal. “THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” he posted on social media.

Conservative lawyer George Conway responded. “Not so. The United States of America is about the rule of law, something you couldn’t care less about. Today nine ordinary citizens upheld the rules of law. You have no right to maliciously defame anyone, let alone a woman you raped. In America, we call this justice.” 

In June 2023 the court required Trump to move $5.5 million to a bank account controlled by the court to cover the jury’s judgment while he appeals it. For this larger verdict, Trump could do the same thing: pay $83.3 million to the court to hold while he appeals, or try to get a bond, which would require a deposit and collateral and would also incur fees and interest. Any bank willing to lend him that money would likely take into consideration that he has other major financial vulnerabilities and charge him accordingly.

This was not, actually, the case that looked like it would incur staggering costs. More threatening is the other case currently underway in Manhattan, where New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron is considering appropriate penalties for the frauds that Trump, the Trump Organization, the two older Trump sons, and two employees committed in their business dealings. New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the case, has asked Engoron to impose a $370 million penalty, as well as a prohibition on the Trump Organization from doing business in New York. 

Judge Engoron has said he hopes to have a decision by the end of the month. 

Former president Trump is under pressure on a number of fronts. As legal analyst Joyce White Vance pointed out tonight in Civil Discourse, two separate juries have now found that Trump acted with malice, and it is becoming harder for him to argue that so many people—two entirely different juries, prosecutors, and so on—are unfairly targeting him. Vance speculates that this latest judgment might hurt his political support. “How do you explain to your kids that you’re going to give your vote in the presidential race to a man who forced his fingers into a woman’s vagina and then lied about it and about her, and exposed her to public ridicule and harm?” she asked.

On the political front, much to his apparent frustration, Trump has not been able to bully former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley out of the race for the Republican nomination, and she is needling him about his mental deterioration. The Republican National Committee has been considering simply deciding Trump is the nominee rather than letting the process play out. The Haley camp responded to that idea with a statement saying that if Ronna McDaniel, the RNC chair, “wants to be helpful she can organize a debate in South Carolina, unless she’s also worried that Trump can’t handle being on the stage for 90 minutes with Nikki Haley.” Ouch. 

Trump’s congressional allies’ attacks on President Biden took another hit today after a business associate of Hunter Biden said in sworn testimony yesterday that President Biden “was never involved” in any of their business dealings. 

John Robinson Walker said: “In business, the opportunities we pursued together were varied, valid, well-founded, and well within the bounds of legitimate business activities. To be clear, President Biden—while in office or as a private citizen—was never involved in any of the business activities we pursued…. “Any statement to the contrary is simply false…. Hunter made sure there was always a clear boundary between any business and his father. Always. And as his partner, I always understood and respected that boundary.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s attempts to destroy the bipartisan border deal, in which Democrats appear to have been willing to give away more than the Republicans out of desperate determination to fund Ukraine, are being called out for cynical politics. The news is awash today with stories condemning the Republicans for caving to the demands of a man who is, at least for now, a private citizen and who is putting his own election over the interests of the American people as he tries to keep the issue of immigration alive to exploit in the 2024 campaign. 

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) told his colleagues: “I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy…. It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.” Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) told Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V of NBC News, “I think it’s crap…. We need to get that deal done to secure the border. If they want to keep it as a campaign issue, I think they need to resign from the damn Senate.”

But while Trump is apparently telling Republicans he will “fix” the border if he gets back into the White House, Greg Sargent noted yesterday in The New Republic that when Trump was in office, “[h]e too released a lot of migrants into the interior, and he couldn’t pass his immigration agenda even with unified GOP control.” And, of course, he never got Mexico to pay for his wall, as he repeatedly claimed he would, while President Joe Biden, in contrast, got Mexico to invest $1.5 billion in “smart” border technology and to beef up its own border security. 

The White House has refused to abandon negotiations even as Trump trashed them. In a statement today, Biden said that negotiators have been “[w]orking around the clock, through the holidays, and over weekends,” to craft a bipartisan deal on the border, and he called out Republicans who are now trying to scuttle the bill. 

“What’s been negotiated would—if passed into law—be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” he said. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.

“Further, Congress needs to finally provide the funding I requested in October to secure the border. This includes an additional 1,300 border patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers, and over 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop fentanyl at our southwest border. Securing the border through these negotiations is a win for America. For everyone who is demanding tougher border control, this is the way to do it. If you’re serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it.”

Biden seems to be signaling that if the Republicans kill this measure, they will own the border issue, but he is not the only one making that argument. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which slants toward the right, wrote: “[G]iving up on a border security bill would be a self-inflicted GOP wound. President Biden would claim, with cause, that Republicans want border chaos as an election issue rather than solving the problem. Voter anger may over time move from Mr. Biden to the GOP, and the public will have a point. Cynical is the only word that fits Republicans panning a border deal whose details aren’t even known.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board went further, articulating what Republicans are signing up for if they continue to prevent funding for Ukraine. Recalling the horrific images of the April 1975 fall of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, to North Vietnamese forces, when desperate evacuees fought their way to helicopters, the board asked: “Do Republicans want to sponsor the 2024 equivalent of Saigon 1975?”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[theculturedmarxist]

The Garmon rule, and other preemption doctrines, are two-way streets. Sometimes they prevent states from issuing regulations that labor unions and employees might prefer—such as statutes that prevent the state from discouraging union activity. Or a union may want to sue an employer in state court for outrageous conduct during an organizing campaign to deter still worse behavior. Either way, whether it strengthens or weakens unions, these are matters for federal law. 

So how did the Glacier Northwest strike end up in the Supreme Court? At issue is the meaning of the phrase “arguably protected.” One might think the word “arguably” would make that standard quite broad. But writing for the Court’s conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett places undue focus on the word “protected.” She also tries to conclude whether this conduct should be protected instead of deferring to the NLRB. Not surprisingly, there are NLRB cases that deny protection for strikes that are “arguably” worse than what happened here, such as security guards leaving federal buildings unprotected. The point of the Garmon doctrine is to allow the board to determine what is protected, not jurists who want to impose their judgment.  

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, it is possible the board might find the employees’ conduct in Glacier Northwest would be protected. In fact, the NLRB issued a complaint and a notice for a hearing against the contractor, alleging that their firing of the employees was an unfair labor practice.  

The Court’s decision sends the parties back to state court to adjudicate Glacier Northwest’s tort claims against the Teamsters local. Such tort claims against unions are common; employers often use them—or the threat of them—to extract concessions from workers. Glacier Northwest might even embolden employers to use tort claims to avoid bargaining in the first place.  

Fortunately, the Court did not overrule the Garmon preemption doctrine. But dark clouds shadow the opinion, particularly those left by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas in their concurrence. They clearly want to get rid of Garmon preemption entirely. What effect would killing it have? It would undoubtedly lead to the kind of satellite litigation we saw in the Glacier Northwest case. There were many other reasons to affirm the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in this case. (I was proud to join an amicus brief in the case.) Nonetheless, eight justices voted to reverse the decision and return the case to trial court. 

Ultimately, it fell to the newest justice to articulate a vigorous defense of the Garmon preemption doctrine and its intellectual foundation—the administrative state. “[C]onsistent with a statutory scheme that gives primacy to the [NLRB’s] expertise, a court’s task under Garmon is unmistakably modest,” wrote Jackson in her solo dissenting opinion. Misapplying Garmon preemption “threatens to both impede the Board’s uniform development of labor law and erode the right to strike,” her dissent warned. 

In its nearly two decades, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has yet to rule in favor of a union when it was a party (see also Knox, Friedrichs, and Janus). But Glacier Northwest was also part of a larger attack on the New Deal and the administrative state, as we’ve seen in environmental cases where a conservative majority has curtailed the long-established regulatory functions of the EPA. The decision shows that the Roberts Court will continue to invite cases that weaken the NLRB and the labor movement.  

[beardedmrbean]

Kenyan authorities were wrong to ban the gay community from registering a rights organisation, the country's Supreme Court has ruled.

Yet at the same time it stressed that gay sex remains illegal.

The judges ruled three-to-two that the country's NGO board was wrong to stop the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC) from registering in 2013.

As Kenya's highest court, the Supreme Court's ruling cannot be overturned.

In their judgment, the judges ruled that "it would be unconstitutional to limit the right to associate, through denial of registration of an association, purely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the applicants".

Nevertheless, the ruling is bitter-sweet for Kenya's gay community. Laws which were introduced under British colonial rule mean that it is criminal to have sex that "is against the order of nature", which can result in up to 14 years in prison.

In May 2019, Kenya's high court rejected an attempt to overturn these laws.

Africa Live: Latest update from around the continent

'Why our fight for gay rights in Kenya isn't over'

Where it's illegal to be gay

Friday's judgement ends a 10-year legal battle which began in 2013 when Eric Gitari, the former executive director of the NGLHRC, challenged the head of Kenya NGO Coordination Board's refusal to permit him to apply to register an NGO under a name containing the words gay or lesbian.

The judges ruled in his favour at the High Court in 2015, again at the Court of Appeal in 2019 and finally in 2023.

Speaking after the ruling, Njeri Gateru, the current executive director of the NGLHRC, said: "The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the lower courts' rulings is a triumph for justice and human rights.

"At a time where the Kenyan LGBTIQ+ community is decrying the increased targeting and violence; this decision affirms the spirit and intention of the Constitution to protect all Kenyans and guarantee their rights."

The ruling comes at a time when homophobic rhetoric has been rising in Kenya.

Members of the LGBTQI+ community have been harassed by police, subjected to body examinations to "prove" gay sex, and openly insulted on social media and in public spaces. Some say they have even been denied healthcare and thrown out of rental houses for being gay.

On the day of the judgement, Member of Parliament George Peter Kaluma filed an official notice that he intended to introduce a bill which would jail for life people convicted of homosexuality or the promotion of it.

While Friday's Supreme Court ruling arguably torpedoes any attempts to legally harass openly gay people with new laws, Mr Kaluma can still rally MPs to increase jail terms for gay sex.

It is also illegal to have gay sex in neighbouring Uganda, where Muslim leaders used Friday prayers to preach against homosexuality.

The head of the country's Muslims, Mufti Sheikh Ramathan Mubajje, called on the authorities to enact even tougher laws against same-sex relations.

He was speaking at the Old Kampala mosque in the capital, Kampala, where hundreds had gathered for Friday prayers.

Earlier in the week, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council circulated a letter to all clerics under its association gazetting Friday as the day to carry out peaceful protests against homosexuality in Uganda.

The clerics were asked to prepare sermons condemning same-sex relations and extend the same message to the media and schools.

In the event, the protests were only held in the eastern city of Jinja.

Gay rights activist Frank Mugisha described the protests as dangerous, saying they could increase cases of violence against those who identify as LGBT.

There has been a recent surge in homophobic sentiment in the country.

Last week, President Yoweri Museveni said Uganda would not embrace homosexuality and that the West should stop trying to impose its views and "normalise" what he called "deviations".

[basichomeloan01]

In this blog, we'll discuss the latest Supreme Court judgments on ancestral property, highlighting key aspects and their impact on ancestral property rights. Recent rulings have clarified inheritance laws, emphasizing equal rights for daughters under the Hindu Succession Act and addressing disputes on property partition. Stay tuned to understand how these judgments shape property ownership.

[indiancourtjudgmentsandupdates]

The Best Online Resources for Indian Court Judgments and Updates

Verdictum is considered one of the best online portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates i.e latest supreme court news updates and latest high Court news update because of its comprehensive, reliable, and real-time coverage of legal news and developments. Here are the key reasons for its popularity.

1. Real-Time Updates

• Verdictum provides instant reporting of Supreme Court, High Courts, and other tribunal proceedings.

• Users can access live updates on important cases and decisions as they unfold, making it a preferred choice for staying current.

2. Coverage of All Legal Domains

• Covers a broad spectrum of legal topics:

o Constitutional law

o Criminal and civil law

o Corporate and commercial law

o Environmental and human rights issues

Includes latest supreme court judgments and court orders, updates on legislation, policy changes, and global legal trends.

3. Summaries of Judgments

• Offers concise and well-written summaries of judgments, making it easy for lawyers, students, and laypeople to understand complex legal rulings.

• Includes highlights and key takeaways from landmark decisions.

4. Expert Opinions and Analysis

• Publishes insightful articles, columns, and opinion pieces by legal experts, practitioners, and academicians.

• Provides context and analysis of judgments and legal developments, adding depth to its news coverage.

5. Accessibility and User-Friendly Features

• Free and subscription-based models ensure accessibility for all.

• Offers a clean, easy-to-navigate interface on both its website and mobile app.

• Mobile app notifications allow users to stay updated on the go.

6. Focus on Transparency

• Verdictum promotes judicial transparency by reporting on courtroom arguments, judicial reasoning, and procedural developments.

• Regularly covers public interest litigation and constitutional cases that impact society.

7. Live Streaming and Video Content

• Offers live streaming of important court proceedings when allowed, enhancing accessibility.

• Produces engaging video content, including interviews with judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, making the portal more interactive.

8. Dedicated Coverage of Legal Education and Careers

• Updates on legal education trends, job opportunities, and exam notifications (e.g., CLAT, AIBE).

• A valuable resource for law students and young professionals seeking career guidance.

9. Comprehensive Database

• Archives of court judgments, orders, and updates allow users to research past cases and legal developments.

• Users can search judgments and reports by topic, court, or keywords.

10. Independence and Credibility

• Verdictum is known for offering Indian Legal News as its unbiased and accurate reporting, earning the trust of the legal community.

• It maintains high journalistic standards and avoids sensationalism, focusing on facts and legal reasoning.

11. Multilingual Support

• Offers legal news and updates in multiple languages, broadening its reach to regional audiences across India.

12. Affordable Subscription Plans

• Provides a premium subscription for users seeking deeper insights, including access to detailed reports, archives, and expert analysis.

• Affordable pricing ensures accessibility for law students and junior advocates.

13. Community Engagement

• Interactive features like webinars, Q&A sessions, and social media presence foster engagement with its audience.

• Actively promotes awareness about legal rights and the judicial process.

14. Recognition in the Legal Community

• Widely regarded as a go-to resource for legal professionals, academicians, journalists, and the general public.

• Frequently cited in research papers, articles, and discussions on Indian law.

Verdictum’s real-time reporting, expert analysis, and user-friendly approach have made it one of the best portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates. Its dedication to transparency, accessibility, and credibility sets it apart as a valuable resource for anyone involved in the legal system.

Verdictum has gained significant popularity  in recent years for offering latest legal news India with its unique approach to legal reporting, emphasis on delivering high-quality content, and its ability to fill critical gaps in the Indian legal media landscape.

Verdictum’s rising popularity can be attributed to its timely updates, detailed analyses, and focus on transparency and accessibility. By catering to diverse audiences—from legal professionals to the general public—it has solidified its place as a trusted and dynamic legal news portal in India.

These resources collectively provide a robust platform for staying updated on Indian court judgments and legal news. Depending on your requirements (e.g., free access vs. in-depth analysis), you can choose the ones that suit your needs.

original Post Content Sources: https://medium.com/@verdictum/the-best-online-resources-for-indian-court-judgments-and-updates-8d83e449ed13

[sooperkanoon]

Indian Treasure Trove Act and Key Supreme Court Rulings

India's legal landscape has evolved significantly over the years, shaped by landmark acts and court decisions. Among the many legislations that hold historical significance is the indian treasure trove act 1878, a colonial-era law that still governs the discovery of hidden treasures in India. Alongside this, latest Supreme Court judgments continue to redefine how justice is interpreted in contemporary times. In this article, we will delve into the relevance of the Indian Treasure Trove Act and the role of recent Supreme Court rulings in shaping legal discourse.

The History and Relevance of the indian treasure trove act 1878 The indian treasure trove act 1878 was enacted during British rule to regulate the discovery of buried or hidden treasures. Under this act, any individual who discovers valuable items, such as coins or artifacts, is required to report the finding to local authorities. The law was designed to ensure the state had control over such discoveries, protecting cultural heritage while deterring illegal claims or misuse.

Though the act dates back to the 19th century, its provisions are still in force today. However, with advancements in archaeology and growing concerns over cultural preservation, questions arise about whether the act adequately serves modern-day requirements. Legal scholars and policymakers have debated whether amendments are needed to make the act more aligned with current realities.

Modern-Day Applications of the Indian Treasure Trove Act In today’s context, the indian treasure trove act 1878 finds itself at the intersection of archaeology, legal governance, and cultural preservation. Whenever historical treasures are unearthed, this act governs the legal framework for ownership and preservation. For instance, discoveries of ancient artifacts during construction projects or archaeological excavations often invoke the act's provisions.

While the law provides clarity on the division of rights between the state and discoverers, critics argue that it lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent exploitation. Many experts call for its overhaul to address gaps in enforcement, especially given the rise in illegal artifact trading.

The Role of Latest Supreme Court Judgments in Legal Evolution India's legal system is dynamic, with the Supreme Court playing a crucial role in interpreting and adapting laws to contemporary needs. The latest Supreme Court judgments frequently address issues related to outdated laws, including colonial-era legislations like the Indian Treasure Trove Act.

Recent cases have highlighted the judiciary's efforts to strike a balance between upholding legal provisions and ensuring justice aligns with evolving societal values. In landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of protecting cultural heritage while ensuring transparency and fairness in how laws are implemented.

For example, some judgments have drawn attention to the misuse of colonial-era laws and called for reforms to align them with constitutional values. These rulings underline the judiciary's proactive approach in modernizing India's legal framework.

The Intersection of Law, History, and Public Interest The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 serves as a fascinating example of how historical laws continue to impact modern society. While its original intent was to regulate the discovery of hidden treasures, the act now also intersects with broader debates about heritage preservation, illegal trading, and public interest.

Similarly, the latest Supreme Court judgments often touch upon matters of public significance, addressing the gap between outdated laws and current realities. Together, these legal frameworks and rulings provide a comprehensive understanding of how India balances its historical legacy with the need for progress.

Conclusion The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 remains a vital piece of legislation, despite its colonial origins. However, its effectiveness in addressing contemporary challenges depends on how it is interpreted and possibly amended to reflect present-day concerns. Simultaneously, the latest Supreme Court judgments continue to play a transformative role in shaping India's legal framework. By reexamining laws like the Treasure Trove Act and delivering landmark rulings, the judiciary upholds justice while preserving the nation's rich heritage.

[indian-court-judgments]

The Best Online Resources for Indian Court Judgments and Updates

Verdictum is considered one of the best online portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates i.e latest supreme court news updates and latest high Court news update because of its comprehensive, reliable, and real-time coverage of legal news and developments. Here are the key reasons for its popularity:

1. Real-Time Updates

• Verdictum provides instant reporting of Supreme Court, High Courts, and other tribunal proceedings.

• Users can access live updates on important cases and decisions as they unfold, making it a preferred choice for staying current.

2. Coverage of All Legal Domains

• Covers a broad spectrum of legal topics:

o Constitutional law

o Criminal and civil law

o Corporate and commercial law

o Environmental and human rights issues

Includes latest supreme court judgments and court orders, updates on legislation, policy changes, and global legal trends.

3. Summaries of Judgments

• Offers concise and well-written summaries of judgments, making it easy for lawyers, students, and laypeople to understand complex legal rulings.

• Includes highlights and key takeaways from landmark decisions.

4. Expert Opinions and Analysis

• Publishes insightful articles, columns, and opinion pieces by legal experts, practitioners, and academicians.

• Provides context and analysis of judgments and legal developments, adding depth to its news coverage.

5. Accessibility and User-Friendly Features

• Free and subscription-based models ensure accessibility for all.

• Offers a clean, easy-to-navigate interface on both its website and mobile app.

• Mobile app notifications allow users to stay updated on the go.

6. Focus on Transparency

• Verdictum promotes judicial transparency by reporting on courtroom arguments, judicial reasoning, and procedural developments.

• Regularly covers public interest litigation and constitutional cases that impact society.

7. Live Streaming and Video Content

• Offers live streaming of important court proceedings when allowed, enhancing accessibility.

• Produces engaging video content, including interviews with judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, making the portal more interactive.

8. Dedicated Coverage of Legal Education and Careers

• Updates on legal education trends, job opportunities, and exam notifications (e.g., CLAT, AIBE).

• A valuable resource for law students and young professionals seeking career guidance.

9. Comprehensive Database

• Archives of court judgments, orders, and updates allow users to research past cases and legal developments.

• Users can search judgments and reports by topic, court, or keywords.

10. Independence and Credibility

• Verdictum is known for offering Indian Legal News as its unbiased and accurate reporting, earning the trust of the legal community.

• It maintains high journalistic standards and avoids sensationalism, focusing on facts and legal reasoning.

11. Multilingual Support

• Offers legal news and updates in multiple languages, broadening its reach to regional audiences across India.

12. Affordable Subscription Plans

• Provides a premium subscription for users seeking deeper insights, including access to detailed reports, archives, and expert analysis.

• Affordable pricing ensures accessibility for law students and junior advocates.

13. Community Engagement

• Interactive features like webinars, Q&A sessions, and social media presence foster engagement with its audience.

• Actively promotes awareness about legal rights and the judicial process.

14. Recognition in the Legal Community

• Widely regarded as a go-to resource for legal professionals, academicians, journalists, and the general public.

• Frequently cited in research papers, articles, and discussions on Indian law.

Verdictum’s real-time reporting, expert analysis, and user-friendly approach have made it one of the best portals for Indian court judgments and legal updates. Its dedication to transparency, accessibility, and credibility sets it apart as a valuable resource for anyone involved in the legal system.

Verdictum has gained significant popularity  in recent years for offering latest legal news India with its unique approach to legal reporting, emphasis on delivering high-quality content, and its ability to fill critical gaps in the Indian legal media landscape. 

Verdictum’s rising popularity can be attributed to its timely updates, detailed analyses, and focus on transparency and accessibility. By catering to diverse audiences—from legal professionals to the general public—it has solidified its place as a trusted and dynamic legal news portal in India. 

These resources collectively provide a robust platform for staying updated on Indian court judgments and legal news. Depending on your requirements (e.g., free access vs. in-depth analysis), you can choose the ones that suit your needs.

[bills-bible-basics]

Gay and Lesbian Agenda Graphic 19 #LGBTQ #GayRights #Transgender Last Updated: Sept. 14, 2024 Whether some of you realize it or not, our nation has been slip sliding away for literally decades. However, the slide has been so slow, so gradual, and so subtle, that it wasn't until about halfway through the decade of the 2010s that a lot of people really began to wake up to what has been going on. However, sadly, by that time, it was already too late. Serious damage had already been done, and the victory had already been won. What has been going on since then basically amounts to mopping up exercises and tying up the loose ends. And boy are they doing a good job of it! So exactly what am I talking about? Well, do you remember a few decades ago -- back in the 1970s, actually -- when the LGBTQ+ crowd began claiming that they just wanted to be left alone to live their lives as they please without harassment or discrimination? Fast-forward fifty years, and you will see one long history of continuous lies, as they aggressively advanced their radical, extreme agenda. Then came gender reassignment surgery. Then came renegade, liberal circuit court judges who repeatedly overturned the will of the people. Then came renegade, liberal state legislatures who likewise overturned the will of the people. Then came civil unions. Then on June 26, 2015 came nationwide legalization of same-sex "marriage" by mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, despite the majority of the American people being opposed to it. Then came openly gay or lesbian bishops, pastors, priests, politicians, actors, sports figures, and everyone in between. Then came same-sex union blessings in some of the churches. Then came adoption of normal, healthy children by same-sex couples. Then came law suits against Christians and Conservatives who follow their hearts and their faith, and who oppose the LGBT lifestyle. Then came library books which openly promote the LGBT lifestyle. Then came gender-neutral bathrooms. Then came drag queens in our public schools during children's story hour. Then came teaching LGBT history in the classroom. Then came liberal parents who encourage their children to act and dress like the opposite sex. Then came hormone injections, puberty-blocking drugs in young children and double mastectomies on adolescent girls in order to alter their natural-born physiology so that they could appear outwardly the way that they were being made to feel inwardly by misguided adults and parents. Then came a gender-neutral option on birth certificates. Now they promote their ungodly lifestyle in every area of the entertainment and mass media industries where they possibly can, and constantly shove it in our faces. It is inescapable; unless one goes and lives in a cave. Now, in the latest news, according to an article in The Washington Times, some liberal-minded schools aren’t happy with just offering LGBTQ+ books in their school libraries. Now they want to FORCE young children with impressionable minds to read them, whether they like it or not. Yes, but of course, as they said, they just wanted to be left alone. Right? If you believe that nonsense, then you are seriously deceived! Thankfully, some parents are fighting back and taking it to the US Supreme Court. If the justices accept the case, let’s hope that the God-fearing justices on the bench will do what is right in the sight of God by giving these brave parents a victory. But concerning the LGBTQ+ agenda, well I say this: What about us? What about our right to live in a Bible-based, God-fearing society which honors and obeys God's natural order of things? How much longer will God endure this madness and rebellion against His holy Laws? When will His patience finally run out? When will His judgments begin to fall on the wicked who mock Him everyday, and who cast His Word to the ground? As the Apostle John wrote some two thousand years ago: "And‭ we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 1 John 5:19, KJV If John were alive today, oh how he would shudder! Article: "Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: A Warning to Modern Society": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/destruction-sodom-gomorrah-1.html Article: "Future of Same-Sex Marriage": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/future-of-same-sex-marriage-01.html Article: "The Gay and Lesbian Agenda: To the Point!": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/homosex1.html Article: "When Sin is No Longer a Sin": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/whensin1.html Article: "Queen James Bible: Blasphemous Abomination Exposed!": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/queen-james-bible-1.html "Homosexuality,Lesbianism, Bestiality, Transvestitism" KJV Bible Verse List: "https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse138.html Poetry regarding LGBTQ+ agenda: https://www.billkochman.com/Poetry/index.html#Gay-and-Lesbian-Agenda Graphics regarding LGBTQ+ agenda: https://www.billkochman.com/Graphics-Library/Gay-and-Lesbian-Agenda.html Non-BBB Article: The Gay Gene?": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/gaygene1.html Non-BBB Article: The Overhauling of Straight America": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles-Non-BBB/overhaul.html By the way, when we come to Jesus Christ and are reborn in the Spirit, the Scriptures make it very clear that we should undergo a spiritual and mental change in our lives, and that we should in fact become NEW CREATURES in Jesus Christ. We should NOT remain the same, living our same old life style, and living in our same old sins. That means that people who belong to the LGBTQ crowd should NOT continue practicing their sexual deviancy. Here is Scriptural proof: "God's Desire for Healing and Repentance" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse302.html "Old Man Versus New Man" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse165.html "Washed and Renewed Mind" KJV Bible Verse List: https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/verse071.html Article: "Don't Ever Underestimate Our Spiritual Enemy": https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/DontUnderestimateOurEnemy1.html https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/gay-and-lesbian-agenda-graphic-19/?Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Agenda%20Graphic%2019

[solarpunkpolliwog]

New Florida Policy on Trans Care in Prison Like “Conversion Therapy”

Earlier this fall, Florida officials ordered transgender women in the state’s prisons to submit to breast exams. As part of a new policy for people with gender dysphoria, prison medical staff ranked the women’s breast size using a scale designed for adolescents. Those whose breasts were deemed big enough were allowed to keep their bras. Everyone else had to surrender theirs, along with anything else considered “female,” such as women’s underwear and toiletry items... (cont. below)

This article was published in partnership with the Tampa Bay Times.

The examinations came after people who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by the prison system’s own providers were brought into meetings at the end of September and told of the prisons’ new policy, which would make it nearly impossible for them to get hormone therapy and other gender-affirming medical care, according to interviews and emails with more than a dozen transgender women who said they attended the meetings.

Josie Takach, who is incarcerated in a men’s facility south of Tallahassee, said a male doctor told her to lift up her shirt, then glanced at her breasts and wrote something down without saying a word. When she tried to ask a question, a nurse “told me not to ask any questions and to just shut up and do what I’m told,” she recalled.

“It felt like I was being treated less than human,” she said.

The state’s chapter of the ACLU sued Florida’s Department of Corrections, which operates the prisons, in late October, calling the policy draconian and arguing it amounts to an unconstitutional ban on gender-affirming care. The new policy is the latest maneuver in the culture war around transgender people’s civil rights in the Sunshine State. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis championed a raft of anti-trans legislation, including a law passed last year that prohibited children with gender dysphoria from accessing treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. A similar law in Tennessee was the subject of arguments in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

In Tallahassee Monday, a federal judge held a preliminary hearing in the ACLU case. The state had asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit altogether, and the ACLU asked him to stop the state from enforcing the new rules. The judge is expected to issue a ruling on these questions in the coming weeks.

The Florida Department of Corrections’ media office did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls with detailed questions, but in court papers responding to the ACLU’s lawsuit, the department’s lawyers argued that the new rules are “a carefully crafted policy that creates an individualized course of treatment for each inmate based on scientific evidence and clinical judgment.”

Under the new policy, the Department of Corrections stated that the prisons will only provide those with gender dysphoria with psychotherapy — and not cross-gender hormones — except “in rare instances … if necessary to comply with the U.S. Constitution or a court decision.” The policy argues that “unaddressed psychiatric issues and unaddressed childhood trauma could lead to a misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria,” and that cross-gender hormones “may be requested by persons experiencing short-termed delusions or beliefs which may later be changed and reversed.”

Florida has the country’s third-largest state prison system, with more than 87,000 people incarcerated at the end of September. Of those, 181 have been identified by the department as transgender, and about 100 received hormone treatment, according to documents state officials filed with the courts in the ACLU case.

The new policy was announced in meetings in several prisons across the state at the end of September. Transgender women who attended the meetings said they were told by officials that everyone identifying as transgender would be “re-evaluated” to assess whether they can have continued access to the care and accommodations they had been receiving, such as permission to grow their hair long. Officials have not told the women whether and under what circumstances they will be allowed to stay on the hormones they have been receiving.

Since then, more than a dozen transgender people said corrections officers ordered them to cut their hair. Mariko Sundwall told The Marshall Project that she was given a disciplinary infraction and spent 10 days in solitary confinement for refusing to cut her hair before officers put her in handcuffs and led her to the prison barber where her hair was cropped short.

“[Before] my hair was long enough for a ponytail. Now I have a buzz cut,” said Jada Edwards, incarcerated in Dade Correctional Institution south of Miami. “I’m very sad and depressed. I feel like they’re taking away my identity.”

Scores of women also had their breasts examined, according to filings in the suit and interviews with some of the women. A medical provider for the state assigned each transgender woman a rating on the Tanner scale, a system used by pediatricians to assess the development of adolescents during puberty. Several of the women said they weren’t told what stage was required for permission to keep their bras, but that almost everyone they knew had theirs taken away.

Some report hiding bras or sewing makeshift underwear — although now women’s undergarments are considered contraband and could result in disciplinary charges — because they feel naked and exposed without them.

Sign up for the latest news and analysis.

Sign Up

Email list managed by Mailchimp

“I feel like I’m 12 years old again, sneaking around wearing a bra,” said Takach, after her female undergarments were confiscated.

The new policy, which requires psychotherapy to treat underlying issues rather than treating the dysphoria, “comes off like conversion therapy,” says Daniel Tilley, the lead attorney from the ACLU of Florida. “We’re trying to change your fundamental nature to get you to stop being who you are.”

Sarah Maatsch, who is incarcerated in a men’s prison south of Orlando, said she was told that the gender dysphoria diagnosis she received from corrections department doctors in 2019 would now be considered a serious psychiatric illness. If she wants to continue her treatment, she said she was told, she would have to move to a more restrictive prison with more psychiatric services, but fewer work and programming opportunities.

“We are all devastated,” said Maatsch. “There are good days, bad days and the very bad days where a part of you hopes you have a heart attack.”

The new policy is the latest change in health care for transgender people in Florida after a 2023 law said any “governmental entity” in Florida “may not expend state funds … for sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.” It did not name prisons specifically, but the Department of Corrections’ new policy says it “shall comply” with this law.

Shortly after DeSantis’ anti-trans bills were passed, transgender people in state prisons began reporting that medications were abruptly changed or delayed with little or no explanation.

Courts have held that prisons are required under the U.S. Constitution to provide gender-affirming hormones as needed. Dan Karasic is a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco who helped develop international standards for treatment of transgender people and who has testified against bans on gender-affirming care in Florida and elsewhere. He read Florida’s new guidelines at The Marshall Project’s request and called them “a fig leaf on their efforts to ban gender-affirming care. They are really trying to skirt the law, as determined by multiple courts, that gender-affirming medical and surgical care must be provided when medically necessary.”

The Florida prison system’s program to treat prisoners with gender dysphoria began in 2017, after Reiyn Keohane sued the state. The federal judge in the case said that the Department of Corrections’ refusal to provide Keohane with hormones and social accommodations, like women’s clothing and haircuts, caused her “to continue to suffer unnecessarily and poses a substantial risk of harm to her health.” During the course of the lawsuit, the state began providing gender-affirming hormone therapy, access to makeup, women’s clothing and other social accommodations within its prisons.

Behind the scenes, Danny Martinez, the state prison system’s medical director, began revising the state’s gender-affirming care program in 2020, he said in a court declaration in response to the ACLU’s recent lawsuit. As many as one-third of the people on hormones in Florida’s prisons were not attending group or personal therapy sessions, he said. “I observed no decrease, and in fact an increase in grievances to the medical and mental health staff from inmates receiving hormone therapy, indicating to me that the treatment solely based on hormone therapy without additional mental health treatment produced limited success,” he wrote. An email to Martinez seeking comment was not returned.

Martinez said he designed the new program based on a 2022 report by Florida’s Medicaid organization that found “insufficient evidence” that medical interventions for gender dysphoria are safe or effective. The report led to the state’s Medicaid program banning coverage of gender-affirming medical care. But a federal judge, in striking down the Medicaid ban last year, found that the report was “a biased effort to justify a predetermined outcome, not a fair analysis of the evidence,” and the report’s conclusion was “not supported by the evidence and was contrary to generally accepted medical standards.”

So far, none of the transgender women incarcerated in Florida have reported being taken off their hormones, but the looming threat has led to widespread anxiety.

“If they took away my hormone therapy treatment, I would be ready to end my life. I’m at that point,” said Sasha Mendoza, who is incarcerated in a men’s prison near Miami, in a declaration filed in the ACLU case. “It may sound drastic. But FDC just let me start my transition and I was doing so well, and now they are making me stop. I’m halfway there and halfway not there.”

[werindialive]

Supreme Court Allows LMV License Holders to Drive Transport Vehicles with Conditions

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared that individuals holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license are permitted to drive transport vehicles, provided they comply with certain conditions. This decision has raised discussions across various sectors, especially among those involved in the transport industry.

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes after a petition challenging the restrictions imposed on LMV license holders. According to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, an individual with an LMV license is only authorized to drive private vehicles, not commercial transport vehicles like buses, trucks, and other heavy-duty vehicles. However, the latest judgment revises this stipulation, allowing LMV license holders to drive certain transport vehicles as long as they meet specific qualifications outlined by the court.

Key Details of the Ruling

The court emphasized that while LMV license holders can now drive transport vehicles, they must undergo additional training and obtain a certification for the specific type of transport vehicle they intend to operate. For instance, those wishing to drive large commercial vehicles such as trucks or buses would need to attend special driving schools that focus on transport vehicle operation. The ruling ensures that drivers are well-equipped to handle the unique challenges of driving transport vehicles, ensuring safety and efficiency on the roads.

The Supreme Court further clarified that the transport vehicles in question must meet certain weight and size restrictions. For example, the judgment specifies that an LMV license holder can drive vehicles with a maximum weight of 7,500 kg, a typical threshold for many light commercial vehicles.

Implications for the Transport Industry

This ruling could have significant implications for the transport industry, especially in terms of the availability of drivers. India has faced a shortage of skilled commercial vehicle drivers, and this decision could provide a new pool of potential drivers who are already familiar with the operation of light motor vehicles. It could also reduce the burden on transport companies that struggle to recruit qualified drivers.

However, the ruling may face some opposition from road safety experts and transport associations who express concerns about road safety and the lack of experience among LMV license holders driving heavy vehicles. They argue that transport vehicle driving requires specialized skills that go beyond what is typically learned while driving lighter vehicles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a notable shift in India’s road safety laws and regulations, aiming to address the ongoing shortage of commercial vehicle drivers. As this judgment unfolds, it will be essential to monitor how it affects road safety, driver training, and the transport industry as a whole.