#corporate law judiciary

[acquisory]

NCLT and NCLAT Rules 2016 – A Transformation in the Corporate Law Judiciary

The establishment of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is a paradigm shift in the corporate law judiciary with regard to the dispute resolution. The tribunals are established with the intention to adjudicate all disputes/issues pertaining to companies in India under one umbrella. The basic objective of constituting these tribunals is to provide a simpler, speedier and more accessible dispute resolution mechanism.

Constitution of NCLT and its Functioning

The Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification dated 1st June, 2016 announced the constitution of NCLT and NCLAT thus dissolving the Company Law Board under the Companies Act, 1956. The NCLT is a quasi — judicial body in India that adjudicates the issues related to Companies in India. The NCLT presently has eleven benches, two at New Delhi (one being the principal bench) and one each at Ahmedabad, Allahabad, Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai.

The powers of NCLT under the Companies Act to adjudicate proceedings are-

- All the cases Initiated before the Company law board under the Companies Act, 1956

- All proceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, including those pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985;

- Appeals or any other proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction; and

- fresh proceedings pertaining to claims of oppression and mismanagement of a company, winding up of companies and all other powers prescribed under the Companies Act.

Decisions of the NCLT may be appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

“NCLT shall have the powers to adjudicate all the proceedings held under CLB, BIFR and any appeals pending before Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, SICA and claims or proceedings w.r.t. oppression and mismanagement of a company, winding up of companies.”

The tribunal shall consist of a President and such number of Judicial and Technical Members as may be required. The principal bench shall be located at New Delhi which shall be presided over by the President. The powers of the Tribunal shall be exercised by Benches constituting of two members, one being the Judicial member and the other a Technical member.

Under the NCLT Rules, 2016 the tribunal shall have a President, Registrar and a Secretary. The President shall have the powers beside provided under the…

Read More: https://www.acquisory.com/ArticleDetails/13/NCLT-and-NCLAT-Rules-2016-%E2%80%93-A-Transformation-in-the-Corporate-Law-Judiciary

[deadpresidents]

Every single MAGA supporting conservative appointed to the courts should star in my new theater play: "Thick Clots Sit In the Pillory and Are Pelted with Rancid Tomatoes". Admission is free.

Sounds great, but do you know what the really awful thing is? They'd still have the power to do exactly what they are currently doing to the country when it comes to abortion, LGBTQ+ issues, race, guns, voting rights, climate change, corporate regulation, economic inequality, immigration, education, the freedom of speech, expression and religion (or the freedom to not believe), and so on.

So, while the idea of throwing tomatoes sounds like a nice way to blow off some steam and win a minor skirmish, they are winning the war. Because ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES and the worst possible person won the wrong election at the scariest possible time. And it resulted in a federal judiciary dominated by very conservative judges who have their jobs as long as they live.

Seeing a free play is always nice, but make no mistake, a lot of us are probably going to be paying for this right-wing federal judiciary for the rest of our lives. I'd rather pay to watch something else.

[super-ultra-mega-deluxe]

The actual consideration of what fascism is is rather something of general import. A number of folks here have deferred to Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, and while I wouldn't discourage it, it is a text from the perspective of semiotics; that is to say, from the perspective of what signifies fascism, not what it is per se. Hence also why Eco emphasizes that none of the fourteen ways he describes are strictly necessary or sufficient for fascism, just that fascism as it has emerges coalesces around such signifiers. The aesthetics and rhetoric of fascists is rather succinctly summed up in Ur-Fascism, but what fascism is in a more direct, structural sense is a somewhat different consideration.

The governing structure of fascist Italy, as an example, retained many of the facets of the liberal democratic system from which it emerged, with a legislature, a judiciary, and an executive. Mussolini was legally the prime minister- though he adopted the title of Duce, literally "leader"- and was appointed by a legislative council- though a new one created by the fascist party called the Grand Council of Fascism that by and large excluded the previous legislature- and the prime minister could legally be dismissed by the head of state, the king, after a sustained vote of no confidence similar to the UK's formulation. Fascist Italy also redoubled- rather than invented- Italian colonial policy, promoting the settlement of Italians into Libya and other African colonial projects and the genocide of local populations. The domestic economic policy of fascist Italy was also much more explicitly in the interests of private business: in 1939, the whole of Italy was explicitly proposed to be legally divided into 22 corporations which appointed members to parliament; labour organization outside of the appointed corporate structures and striking as a practice were banned. The interests of fascist Italy's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois, and their economic policy is often referred to as specifically corporatist.

Nazi Germany was similar in structure, though while the German parliament- called the Reichstag- was maintained, a series of laws were passed which enabled the Chancellor- Hitler, who was appointed such by President Hindenburg- and the cabinet to implement laws without parliamentary or presidential approval. The Hitler cabinet is generally considered to have been the defacto ruling body of Nazi Germany, though members of the Reichstag obviously still convened and drafted laws and ran elections and generally supported Nazi rule and the judiciary remained a distinct body. The Nazis also wanted to redouble their colonial policy in specifically Africa- a theatre in which they were snubbed compared to other European powers- but were by and large unable to secure resources there for continued expansion due to the British opposing them in protecting its own colonial projects. A rather infamous and demonstrative guiding principle of Nazi economic policy, Lebensraum- literally "living space"- sought specifically to appropriate land and other productive capital to give to Germans that they might be made petite bourgeois and small artisans; de-proletarianized and bourgeoisified, at the same time that the people such capital is expropriated from were made slaves to fuel further expansion or killed outright. This was imposed both within and, once the resources of social underclasses at home ran dry, without. The interests too of Germany's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois.

What all of this is to say is primarily that fascism as a governmental system is a legal permutation of liberal democracy, rather than a strict departure from it. The overriding interests of fascist states are also commensurately the interests of the bourgeoisie of those nations. It's an entirely logical progression of liberalism, to be frank, and a rather stark example of why liberal states should be opposed. The most violent fascist policy at home is often simply what liberal states have as their explicit foreign policy, for instance. As for whether this or the other politician in a liberal democracy is a fascist, I'd ask first and foremost that it be known that the Nazi policy of expansion was based first on the US policy of expansion; the cart isn't pulling the horse, as it were.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Scholars in support of the Moraes Brazil decision against X

Here is the link, in Portuguese, here is part of a Claude translation:

We, the undersigned, wish to express our deep concern about the ongoing attacks by Big Tech companies and their allies against Brazil’s digital sovereignty. The Brazilian judiciary’s dispute with Elon Musk is just the latest example of a broader effort to restrict the ability of sovereign nations to define a digital development agenda free from the control of mega-corporations based in the United States. At the end of August, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court banned the X platform from Brazilian cyberspace for failing to comply with court decisions that required the suspension of accounts that instigated right-wing extremists to participate in riots and occupy the Legislative, Judicial, and Governmental palaces on January 8, 2023. Subsequently, President Lula da Silva made clear the Brazilian government’s intention to seek digital independence: to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign entities for data, AI capabilities, and digital infrastructure, as well as to promote the development of local technological ecosystems. In line with these objectives, the Brazilian state also intends to force Big Tech to pay fair taxes, comply with local laws, and be held accountable for the social externalities of their business models, which often promote violence and inequality. These efforts have been met with attacks from the owner of X and right-wing leaders who complain about democracy and freedom of expression. But precisely because digital space lacks internationally and democratically decided regulatory agreements, large technology companies operate as rulers, deciding what should be moderated and what should be promoted on their platforms. Moreover, the X platform and other companies have begun to organize, along with their allies inside and outside the country, to undermine initiatives aimed at Brazil’s technological autonomy. More than a warning to Brazil, their actions send a worrying message to the world: that democratic countries seeking independence from Big Tech domination risk suffering disruptions to their democracies, with some Big Tech companies supporting far-right movements and parties.

Continue reading.

[thecurioustale]

A Supreme Court Ruling that Should Not Be Enforced

I think the Chevron Defense ruling last week is the most dangerous decision by the Supreme Court this year, as it will immediately begin to disrupt the the entire federal executive's ability to function and will directly lead in the coming years to the dismantling of environmental protections, worker protections, regulatory oversight, and much more.

But today's ruling on presidential immunity is, by far, the most unconstitutional ruling of this term, and one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional rulings I have ever seen or learned about by the US Supreme Court. It is up there with Citizens United (corporations are people), Plessy vs. Ferguson (segregation in schools), and Dobbs (stripping people of acknowledged constitutional rights).

I understand the need for individual officeholders to have blanket immunity from civil litigation (so you sue the organization, not the person) and even some qualified criminal immunity for that officeholder's official activities. But what the Supreme Court did today, in its 6–3 ruling, is declare that the US president need only declare or construe or even simply believe that they are acting in an official capacity, and, therein, they are immune from all criminal liability unconditionally.

The President of the United States is now above the law. Full stop.

For years I have wondered where we should draw the line on lawless behavior and extremism from our courts, especially the US Supreme Court. The thing about our rule of law is that you have to accept the outcome of court cases; if you don't you are basically calling for violent revolution whether you realize it or not, and at an absolute minimum you are calling for chaos and unrest.

I have always asserted that Neil Gorsuch's votes on the Court should not be recognized, as his appointment to the Supreme Court was the result of a power grab by Mitch McConnell. But of course as more time passes this becomes more and more unlikely. And Kavanaugh and Barrett's appointments I have no choice but to accept as legitimate, so even if Gorsuch were not counted this ruling would still have been a significant 5–3 majority.

Citizens United was real close for me to delegitimizing the ruling majority on the bench at the time, and the more recent Dobbs ruling actually crossed my personal line and made all of the justices who signed it unfit to hold their offices, but I figured that it would still be better to resolve the problem by passing a federal abortion rights law when Democrats next have the opportunity and continuing to try to flush the fascist judge problem out of the judiciary through maintaining control of the White House and Senate and appointing new judges over time.

But this ruling, now, raises the possibility by at least an order of magnitude that our constitutional system of democracy and rule of law in America will be dismantled by the next sufficiently extreme or unscrupulous Republican president, be that Trump himself or whomever else.

Just to give you an idea of the landscape that we now live in, Joe Biden could, at this moment, order military special ops teams to assassinate Donald Trump. Hell, he could do it himself: He could walk up to Trump and pull the trigger. And he would be completely immune from criminal prosecution for it now or ever. And that's just the beginning.

If not corrected, this will be used someday to overthrow our democracy. And by then it will be too late for us to do anything about it through peaceful means.

In 2020 I worried that, even if Biden won the presidency, it would just be four years of calm before the real storm began. At the time I wasn't thinking about another Trump presidency but rather the committed fascists high in his party who want to succeed him. Cruz, DeSantis, the usuals. Trump is a buffoon with very little self-control, but a lot of these other people are smart cookies. In 2024 my worry remains relevant: We are one step closer today to handing the fascists our country.

If I were the president at this moment, I would declare this ruling invalid. Because it is. Not only does it have no basis in the Constitution, but it upends some of the most fundamental assumptions of our Constitution and our whole legal regime. I would go before the public and say "This ruling is illegal. This ruling gives me the power to assassinate anyone I want; to run criminal enterprises from the Oval Office; to commit fraud and extortion and embezzlement of your money as taxpayers; to imprison my political opponents, shut down the free press, and forcibly remove from office any judge or police officer with the gall to rule against my actions or try hold me accountable. This ruling makes me a king. That is what makes it illegal. As the leader of the executive branch of our government, I have a duty not to enforce an illegal and unconstitutional ruling, and I am directing all federal agencies to similarly disregard it. Neither I nor any other US president should be placed above the law."

And believe you me, I would be tempted to go a lot further, including appointing six new justices on the Court and no longer recognizing the old six. But for the sake of the country and the way we do things in this country I would limit myself to the above action of refusing to recognize this one ruling.

I understand that this opens a Pandora's box. That's how the fascist resurgence in this country has worked: Republicans will do something completely unreasonable (like gumming up judicial nominations), forcing Democrats to break norms just to get the people's business done (like eliminating the judicial filibuster), which Republicans then turn around and exploit to their advantage (as by using their time in power to appoint whomever they want to the courts). But I think this is the way it has to be. We can't let this ruling stand. The other problems—Citizens United, Dobbs—can be fixed through legislation. This one can't, except maybe by a law that specifically declares that a president is not above the law, which I'm not sure would itself be constitutional. In any case, another problem with that is that fascists are selective in their application of the law. They have no problem ruling in favor of conservatives, but will never permit that exact same legal reasoning to then benefit their ideological enemies.

But yeah, this is bad. The Chevron ruling will begin to erode our federal executive in horrible ways, and this immunity ruling sets the stage for nightmarish conduct by a future president.

I didn't watch the debate the other day, or any of the analysis after the fact. I know who I am voting for, and, on some level, I didn't want to have to watch Biden's inevitably uncharismatic performance. And then everyone started melting down and crying that the sky was falling, so I went and watched a short clip of Biden's worst moments, and I get it. That performance goes beyond the stutter that often wrongly gets conflated with dementia. But in this case he clearly lost his train of thought and he did it on-stage in front of millions of people. That's a rough day.

I still don't think the mate is senile. I have seen plenty of people have the meltdown that he had, and I have had that meltdown myself. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. But even if Joe Biden were hunched over in a wheelchair drooling out the side of his mouth, I would still vote for him, and gladly. Because not voting for him is a vote for Trump, and I would not vote for a candidate who spent the whole debate lying and who himself is a traitor, an egomaniac, a convicted felon, a con artist, a failed coup plotter, and an ethically bankrupt, intellectually stunted manchild. And because, moreover, he has run a good administration. He has good people around him, and can be ably succeeded by Vice President Harris if needed. When you vote for a president you are voting not just for an individual but for a team, and that team's ethos, and I have no doubt which team, which ethos, I support. We are asking the wrong person to drop out of this race.

Anyway! President Biden is going to speak to the public tonight about this court ruling. I don't know what he will say. I don't expect anything meaningful a la refusing to enforce the Court's ruling, but it sure would be nice. President Trump should be prosecuted for his alleged crimes on January 6 (which is the trial most directly impacted by this ruling), crimes of which Trump is unambiguously guilty and which are "alleged" only in the blindfolded eyes of Justice for the sake of due process. America needs this accountability, or we will suffer terribly for want of it in the future.

[odinsblog]

This Supreme Court is illegitimate and deeply corrupt

Two years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.

Roberts told a friend that the change was motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, given that her husband was now the highest-ranking judge in the country. "There are many paths to the good life," she said. "There are so many things to do if you're open to change and opportunity."

"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."

Roberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves.

(continue reading)

[bestworstcase]

klasdaskdasldas. i have a. great multitude of follow-up questions after the incarnadine post and i am struggling to decide which to ask, if that's okay? uhhhhhhh. i'm definitely curious about the Alsius Meritocratic Party/changes between Mantelian government and Atlesian government!

( the incarnadine post )

brief background: the pre-war mantle had a legislative assembly for which all adult citizens were eligible and selected by lot each year; military and civil magistracies were both elected by the assembly, and the assembly’s agenda was set for it by a theocratic executive body called the chancery. (the state religion was a highly syncretic form of madagian – worship of the four maidens – which remains the dominant religion in atlas today). notionally, the chancery was an elective body but in practice the state church was the king-maker, and decades preceding the great war were marked by a steady erosion of state power from the assembly and the (already somewhat impotent) judiciary.

post-war, reforms imposed by the vytal accords stripped executive power from the chancery (which still exists as the governing body of the state church, itself much diminished in political power) and replaced it with an executive council (6 elective seats, 3 appointed by the elected councilmen). the magistracies and judiciary were also restructured and strengthened but that’s not particularly relevant for the subject of this post; the assembly largely did not change, other than penalties for absences being reduced and the establishment of a procedure for the assemblies to impeach members of the council under certain circumstances.

so!! the executive council has no direct legislative power but because it sets the agenda for the assembly, it exercises quite a lot of indirect legislative influence (in that the council can kill any proposed law by declining to call the assembly for a vote). that plus it’s being elective plus its small size makes it the most powerful branch of the atlesian government and the one political parties typically focus most on controlling.

the AMP arose in reaction to post-war social reforms, primarily related to faunus civil rights but also a raft of new labor laws, which precipitated a migration of wealthy mantelians (in particular, former slave owners, most of whom had operated dust mines reliant on enslaved labor) to the swiftly-growing suburb surrounding atlas academy. (before the great war, atlas academy had been called alsius; hence ‘alsius meritocratic party’)

early on, the main thing the AMP stood against was a set of government programs to bring newly-emancipated fauni into a level economic playing field, which were funded largely by taxes targeted narrowly on industries where slave labor had been ubiquitous. by the present day, the party platform has moderated away from overtly anti-fauni policies (as these are politically toxic) to a broader anti-regulatory, anti-union position. the AMP is reviled in mantle but popular in atlas, which—because four of the six elective council seats are allotted to districts in atlas—has resulted in the AMP holding council majorities more often than not for the last few decades.

aside from the disdain for business regulation and worker rights, the modern AMP platform is built around a philosophy that equal opportunity is desirable, but shouldn’t be achieved by ‘penalizing success’ (i.e., imposing regulations or higher taxes on corporations and wealth). staunchly pro-military, strong support for heavy investment into public education and healthcare, socially egalitarian (nominally; there’s a noticeable covert hostility toward faunus rights still), against government subsidization of industries except for dust mining (although the fringe of the party wants to slash these too; the problem is that atlas/mantle would be uninhabitable without dust, but dust mining in the tundra is incredibly costly. the SDC runs its solitan mines at a loss it offsets in other more profitable markets, further shored up by military contracts; every other atlas-based mining competitor is dependent on government subsidies to stay afloat.)

currently the AMP holds four seats on the council. there’s a popular movement in mantle to expand the number of council seats to eleven by breaking up the mantle ‘districts’ into a seat per major borough, but that has virtually no chance of getting off the ground until/unless an atlas seat flips.

(the non-elective seats are held by 1. headmaster of atlas, 2. army general, and 3. governor of mantle, with the former two currently both held by ironwood; the votes for/against calling an assembly to vote on this proposal are currently three for, five against. if one of the AMP-held atlas seats flips it’ll be four-four and the thinking is that ironwood may be persuadable. if it goes to the assembly it’s all but guaranteed to pass, because the nature of the assembly—a set proportion of the citizen population, selected annually by random lot—means it’s statistically likely in any given year that the assembly’s majority will be working- and middle-class mantelians)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica:

Elon Musk's X Corp. today sued the World Federation of Advertisers and several large corporations, claiming they "conspired, along with dozens of non-defendant co-conspirators, to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue" from the social network formerly known as Twitter. "We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war," Musk wrote today, a little over eight months after telling boycotting advertisers to "go fuck yourself." X's lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas targets a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The other defendants are Unilever PLC; Unilever United States; Mars, Incorporated; CVS Health Corporation; and Ørsted A/S. Those companies are all members of GARM. X itself is still listed as one of the group's members.

"This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States... Concerned that Twitter might deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms set through GARM, the conspirators collectively acted to enforce Twitter's adherence to those standards through the boycott," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit seeks treble damages to be calculated based on the "actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial." X also wants "a permanent injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, enjoining Defendants from continuing to conspire with respect to the purchase of advertising from Plaintiff." The lawsuit came several weeks after Musk wrote that X "has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket," and called for "criminal prosecution." Musk's complaints were buoyed by a House Judiciary Committee report claiming that "the extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms."

Right-wing culture war zealot X owner Elon Musk files frivolous lawsuit against World Federation of Advertisers and several large companies over withholding advertising funding on X.

[its-suanneschafer-author]

Project 2025: Chapter 1 is basically a civics lesson in the organization of the office of the President and his staff (i.e. the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, etc) with ideas as to how many of these offices can be consolidated and “yes” men to Project 2025 put into place.

Chapter 2: Discusses the office of the President. Ironically, in spite of the current Supreme Court giving the President unlimited power and immunity, the bottom of page 43 quotes James Madison: “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Yet it goes on to say the  President must have the “boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and self-denial to use the bureaucratic machine.” 

Later, Project 2025 states that the “United States today faces an untenable fiscal situation and owes $31 trillion on a debt that is steadily increasing” yet refuses to admit that a substantial amount of that deficit falls to the hands of Trump and the GOP’s refusal to tax billionaires and corporations. (The ten-year cost of the legislation and executive actions President Trump signed into law was about $8.4 trillion with interest (27% of the $31 trillion.)

Page 51 states the “NSA should immediately evaluate and eliminate directorates that are not aligned with the President’s agenda and replace them with new directorates as appropriate that can drive implementation of the President’s signature national security priorities.” Yet their leader, Trump, had national security documents in unsafe conditions and hobnobs with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un whose policies are in direct opposition of American ideals.

Page 60: Here are the first inklings of the GOP’s plans to restrict personal rights in the name of “returning rights to the individual”:

(1) “the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas.”

(2) “Abolishing the Gender Policy Council would eliminate central promotion of abortion (‘health services’); comprehensive sexuality education (‘education’); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet ‘gender affirming care’ and ‘sex-change’ surgeries on minors.” In essence, if you are not a heterosexual Christian male white supremacist, you are screwed.

#Project2025

#SayNOtoProject2025

#GOP

#Republicans

#HumanRights

#IndividualRights

#WomensRights

#USConstitution

#MAGAisNotAllThatGreat

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Nov 6, 2024

The concept of “gender identity” is the engine of a recent revolution in public health policies and school curricula, and well as guidelines for the civil service, law enforcement agencies, academia, the army, the judiciary and the corporate world. This week it was reported that the Labour government has instructed all its departments to modify its official language to use the phrase “LGBT+” rather than “LGBT”. The “+” is intended to reflect those whose “gender identity” falls outside of the standard binary of male and female.

The ramifications of wholesale policy changes on the basis of “gender identity” have been severe. We have seen rapists in women’s prisons, men in women’s sports, male patients accommodated on female hospital wards, children medicalised, and citizens arrested for failing to conform to the new diktats. Surely, given the seismic nature of these societal changes, someone in the government would know how “gender identity” ought to be defined?

Apparently not. Jacqui Smith, now the Rt Hon the Baroness Smith of Malvern and the government spokesperson for equalities, was asked this question only today in the House of Lords. Here is the transcript from Hansard:

Lord Lucas (Con): My Lords, do the Government have a working definition of gender and gender identity and, if so, could they share it with the House?

Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab): The noble Lord would be well advised to look at the Equality Act, for example. I have to say that this would be a better debate if we spent more time worrying about how we provide services and account for people’s needs, and less about how we catch our political opponents out.

Lord Markham (Con): As a previous Health Minister, I know that there is a serious health reason to have a proper understanding of the answer to the question of when a woman is a woman and needs to have treatment based on her sex. Please: this is a serious question that deserves a serious answer.

Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab): I agree – a woman is an adult female, and her biological sex may well determine what services she needs from the NHS. That is why it is important that, in statistics that are used both in the census and more broadly by our public services, we have a consistent and an agreed approach to that. That is what I have been talking about up to this point. Frankly, I was taking this seriously, and I hope that others around the House will as well.

But was Smith really taking this seriously as all? She at least acknowledged that a “woman” is an “adult female”, but that wasn’t an answer to the question. Not a bat’s squeak of a definition of “gender identity” was attempted here, which can only lead us to assume that Smith does not have one. If no-one knows what the term means, why is it the basis of any government policy at all, let alone the wellspring of an entire branch of so-called “medicine”?

It might be instructive to look at how the term has been defined by the various bodies who promote the ideology. In comparing these definitions, the reader will be struck by the similarity of the language used by each group, almost as though a set script has been distributed and ventriloquised:

National Health Service (NHS) “Gender identity is a way to describe a person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female, or non-binary, which may not correspond to the sex registered at birth.”

Stonewall “A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.”

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) “Gender identity is a person’s internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their own internal gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth.”

World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) “Gender identity is a person’s intrinsic sense of being male, female, or an alternative gender. This internalized sense of gender is not necessarily visible to others and may differ from the gender role traditionally associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.”

American Psychological Association (APA) “Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply-felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonbinary, gender-neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth.”

World Health Organisation (WHO) “Gender identity is defined as a person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, and mannerisms.”

United Nations (UN) “Gender identity reflects a deeply felt and experienced sense of one’s own gender, which can include being male, female, a blend of both, or neither, and it may correspond to or differ from the sex assigned at birth.”

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) “Gender identity is one’s internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their own internal sense of gender identity are not the same.”

Mayo Clinic “Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person’s assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. Gender expression typically reflects a person’s gender identity.”

In addition to the obvious similarities of the formulae, note how all of these definitions are circular in nature. Gender is gender. Which is to say, it means nothing at all.

So perhaps we can turn to commentators and campaigners to have a crack at this most thorny of definitions. Helen Joyce has called it “something like a sexed soul”. Journalist Sarah Ditum opts for “an immaterial sense of self”. On my show Free Speech Nation, barrister and trans campaigner Robin Moira White described it as “an essence of male or female”. Trans activist Julia Serano veers close to agreement, having coined the term “subconscious sex” to approximate the “inexplicable self-understanding of what sex/gender one should be”. “Gender identity”, then, is that which is claimed once an individual determines what their “subconscious sex” might be.

Psychiatrist Jack Turban defines “gender identity” as one’s “sense of identity in relationship to masculinity and femininity”. This, he argues falls into three categories: “the hard to put into words feeling of it”, “your relationship to gender roles and expectations” and “your relationship with your primary and secondary sex characteristics”. Make of that what you will.

Judith Butler, that doyenne of queer theory, rejects the notion of an innate gender identity entirely, and instead sees it as performative:

“In other words, acts, gestures, and desire produce the effect of an internal core or substance, but produce this on the surface of the body, through the play of signifying absences that suggest, but never reveal, the organizing principle of identity as a cause. Such acts, gestures, enactments, generally construed, are performative in the sense that the essence or identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means. That the gendered body is performative suggests that it has no ontological status apart from the various acts which constitute its reality. This also suggests that if that reality is fabricated as an interior essence, that very interiority is an effect and function of a decidedly public and social discourse, the public regulation of fantasy through the surface politics of the body, the gender border control that differentiates inner from, outer, and so institutes the "integrity" of the subject. In other words, acts and gestures, articulated and enacted desires create the illusion of an interior and organizing gender core, an illusion discursively maintained for the purposes of the regulation of sexuality within the obligatory frame of reproductive heterosexuality.”

One may as well return to the circular definitions favoured by every major medical institution in the western world. Alternatively, we could turn to Titania McGrath, whose definition should most definitely be adopted as official government policy.

It may not make any sense. But that doesn’t seem to matter, does it?

==

I don't accept the idea of a "gender identity" for the same reason I don't accept the idea of an eternal Xian soul, Scientology's thetans, past lives and reincarnation, or miscellaneous auras, chakras or karma. You are a biological being. There is no part of you that doesn't function through your biology.

They're all unfalsifiable, vaguely defined, incoherent mysticism.

[aasthasposts]

Media: The Fourth Pillar of Democracy

In a democracy, there are three traditional pillars: the executive (government), the legislature (lawmakers), and the judiciary (courts). However, in today’s world, the media is often called the “fourth pillar of democracy” because of its essential role in holding the other three pillars accountable and informing the public.

1. Informing the Public

The media is the primary source of information for citizens. It keeps people informed about government policies, laws, elections, and important events, allowing them to make educated decisions. For democracy to function properly, citizens must be aware of what is happening in their country and around the world. Media outlets like newspapers, TV, radio, and online platforms help disseminate this information.

2. Holding Power to Account

The media acts as a watchdog, checking the actions of government officials, political leaders, and corporations. Investigative journalism exposes corruption, malpractice, and injustice. By reporting the truth and highlighting wrongdoing, the media helps prevent abuses of power. Without a free press, those in power could operate without oversight, threatening the integrity of democracy.

3. Encouraging Debate and Discussion

Media platforms provide a space for public debate and discussion. They allow diverse viewpoints to be heard, which is crucial in a democratic society. Whether it’s through news reports, opinion articles, or interviews, the media helps people engage with different ideas, fostering an environment where informed public debate can thrive.

4. Ensuring Transparency

For democracy to work, transparency is key. The media plays an important role in ensuring that government actions, decisions, and policies are open to public scrutiny. When journalists report on government spending, legal proceedings, and public policies, they ensure that leaders are acting in the best interest of the people and not hiding behind closed doors.

5. Protecting Freedoms

A free and independent media is one of the greatest protectors of individual freedoms in a democracy. It provides a platform for citizens to express their opinions, share ideas, and challenge authority without fear of censorship. It also ensures that voices from marginalized groups and communities are heard, promoting equality and inclusion.

Conclusion: The Vital Role of Media in Democracy

The media is not just a source of information—it is a cornerstone of democracy. It keeps citizens informed, holds those in power accountable, promotes transparency, and encourages public debate. As the “fourth pillar,” the media ensures that democracy remains strong, healthy, and responsive to the needs of the people. Without the media, democracy would lack the checks and balances necessary to protect freedom and justice.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Two worthwhile articles on the Supreme Court.

          The NYTimes published an article over the weekend regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s entry into the world of millionaires and billionaires, Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a Door to the Court. (This article is accessible to all.) The article describes an unseemly closeness between a justice of the Supreme Court and wealthy suitors who shower Thomas with unseemly access to sporting events, vacation travel, and celebrity parties that skirt the edges of legality. If those unreported gifts from “friends with benefits” are not illegal, they should be. The point seems to be to purchase access to the Supreme Court via a corruptible justice.

          Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is that Thomas has allowed the Supreme Court’s courtroom to be used as a reception space for a private organization of wealthy donors, the “Horatio Alger Association.” Per the Times,

[Thomas] has granted [the Association] unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members. One entrepreneur called it “the closest thing to being knighted in the United States.” In the courtroom, [Justice Thomas] conducts the organization’s foundational rite, the induction of roughly 10 new members. Toward the end of the ceremony, scholarship recipients make a brief appearance, walking in procession through the courtroom.

          Uh, excuse me?? The US Supreme Court is being used as a “graduation hall” for inductees into private society of Clarence Thomas’s wealthy buddies? Where, oh where is John Roberts when this outrage is occurring in the Supreme Court itself?? Gosh, maybe the rest of us can ask to have wedding receptions and birthday dinners in the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t that be cool?

          This has got to stop. John Roberts is incapable of managing the Article III branch of government. Congress needs to step in, impose order, and dare John Roberts to do something about it.

          Ian Millhiser at Vox has published a “wrap-up” to the Supreme Court’s 2022-23 term, The importance of staying angry at the Supreme Court, with sub-header: “The way to beat a partisan Supreme Court is to hold a grudge against it for a really long time.”

          Much of the damage recounted by Millhiser is familiar and grim, but he finds a silver lining in the Court’s refusal to walk over the edge into insanity:

So, while this Supreme Court frequently exercises arbitrary authority over US policy, it drew the line against decisions that could destroy democracy in the United States altogether. And the justices also showed that they are unwilling to sign onto the MAGA movement’s more novel legal arguments. This Court holds old grudges, but it does not necessarily sign on to every new grudge held by the rightmost fringe of the judiciary.

          Millhiser attributes the reticence of a few members of the reactionary majority to adopt the most extreme measures of the MAGA extremists to polling that shows the Supreme Court is losing legitimacy: 59% of Americans disapprove of the Court in the most recent Quinnipiac poll—a historic “negative” rating for the Court.

          And Millhiser ends with this positive note about the quality and experience of President Biden’s nominees to the federal bench:

Moreover, while past Democratic presidents often nominated prosecutors, corporate law partners, and other lawyers who spent their careers working on behalf of the already powerful, Biden has selected an unusually large number of public defenders, civil rights lawyers, and others who’ve spent their careers advancing liberal or democratic values. In just one week in June, the Senate confirmed Dale Ho — arguably the nation’s preeminent voting rights litigator — to a powerful district court in Manhattan, and then confirmed Julie Rikelman, a similarly prominent abortion rights lawyer, to the First Circuit.

            In the end, Millhiser’s prescription is for Democrats to hold a grudge against the Court in the same way that Republicans did for fifty years after the decision in Roe v. Wade. Although we will not need to wait that long to reverse the Court’s decisions of the last 24 months, we need to be as determined and unforgiving as Republicans were about Roe v. Wade.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[ngdrb]

The Downfall of the US Supreme Court

The recent trajectory of the United States Supreme Court has raised significant concerns about its credibility and impartiality. The Court, historically viewed as a pillar of justice and an arbiter of constitutional integrity, now faces scrutiny due to a series of decisions that appear to align closely with right-wing ideologies. This perceived shift challenges the foundational principles of impartiality and equity that are essential for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

One of the most contentious issues involves the Court's rulings on voting rights. Decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, have been criticized for undermining efforts to protect against racial discrimination in voting. By effectively weakening federal oversight, the Court has enabled the implementation of state-level laws that disproportionately affect minority voters, raising questions about the commitment to ensuring equal access to the democratic process.

Additionally, the Court's approach to reproductive rights has sparked significant debate. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision represents a profound shift in legal precedent, affecting millions of women across the country. Critics argue that this decision not only disregards decades of established jurisprudence but also imposes a particular moral viewpoint, thereby infringing on personal liberties and bodily autonomy.

The influence of corporate interests on the Court's decisions has also come under scrutiny. In cases like Citizens United v. FEC, the Court has expanded the role of money in politics, equating financial expenditure with free speech. This interpretation has paved the way for unprecedented levels of corporate influence in elections, potentially skewing political outcomes in favor of wealthy interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Furthermore, the Court's stance on environmental regulations has raised alarms among advocates for climate action. By limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Court appears to favor deregulation over environmental protection, potentially jeopardizing efforts to combat climate change and protect public health.

The cumulative effect of these decisions suggests a judiciary increasingly aligned with conservative ideologies, raising critical questions about the balance and separation of powers. As the Court continues to wield significant influence over American life, it is imperative to ensure that its rulings reflect a commitment to justice, equality, and the broader public good, rather than narrow partisan interests.

Rebuilding trust in the Supreme Court requires a renewed dedication to impartiality and a recognition of the diverse needs and values of the American populace. Only through such measures can the Court regain its standing as a fair and just arbiter of the nation's laws.

[theburialofstrawberries]

Revisiting this from Samuel Moyn back in 2018, quite prescient:

“Affirmative action will be the first to go, with Justice Kavanaugh’s vote. A federal abortion right is also on the chopping block, with the main question remaining whether it will die in a single blow or a succession of smaller ones. The First Amendment will continue to be “weaponized” in the service of economic power, as Justice Elena Kagan put it last term. And the rest of constitutional law will turn into a defense of business interests and corporate might the likes of which the country has not seen in a century.

Which brings us back to Franklin Roosevelt’s mistake and our opportunity. The last time the court was converted into a tool of the rich and powerful against political majorities, Roosevelt tried to pack the court. Once the Democrats had finally gathered enough political will to stand the Court down, Roosevelt told the American people in March of 1937 that it was time to “save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”

But the Constitution is what got us here, along with longstanding interpretations of it such as Marbury v. Madison that transform popular rule into elite rule and democracy into juristocracy. Only because of the constitution do Democrats have to battle in a political system in which minorities take the presidency—twice in our lifetime. Only because of a cult of the higher judiciary do Democrats find themselves facing an all-powerful institution set to impose its will on a majority of Americans who would decide things differently.

The mythology of constitutional law dies hard.

[...] 

The United States, Roberto Unger once wrote, is distinguished by “the single-minded focus upon the higher judges and their selection as the most important part of democratic politics.” This syndrome is reflected in the left as well as the right, and their choice over the decades “to obtain from judges, under the cover of improving interpretation, the advances popular politics fail to deliver.” Yet, in democracies, it is the people who are supposed to write their own laws. The limits of this longstanding judicial strategy were clear long before the left failed to block Kavanaugh, which means the only progressive move now is to reclaim democracy.

Consider the alternatives. In the face of a solid conservative majority for years to come, there is no doubt that many (both inside and outside the court) will look hopefully to Chief Justice John Roberts as the new swing vote and treat him, as they did Anthony Kennedy, as the new “centrist” to lure. But Roberts will defect far less regularly than Kennedy. For the more radical, it will seem tempting to complain—as Roosevelt did—of the betrayal of the Constitution. Yet the last constitutional revolution in the name of democracy, at the height of the New Deal, ended up setting the stage for fifty years of illicit judicial empowerment, in part because it merely pushed judges into promising to exercise restraint.

In the face of an enemy Supreme Court, the only option is for progressives to begin work on a long-term plan to recast the role of fundamental law in our society for the sake of majority rule—disempowering the courts and angling, when they can, to redo our undemocratic constitution itself. This will require taking a few pages from the conservative playbook of the last generation. It is conservatives who stole the originally progressive talking point that we are experiencing “government by judiciary.” It is conservatives who convinced wide swathes of the American people that it is the left, not the right, that too routinely uses constitutional law to enact its policy preferences, no matter what the text says. The truth is the reverse, and progressives need to take back the charge they lost. To do so, they need to abandon their routine temptation to collude with the higher judiciary opportunistically. Progressives must embrace democracy and its risks if they want to avoid the stigma of judicial activism that still haunts them from the past.”

[ravagedromance]

Analyzing the Larger Significance of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: Considering White Employees and Workplace Dynamics

Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow filed a lawsuit against her employer after being transferred from an intelligence position to an administrative one, arguing that the decision reflected discriminatory intent. She claimed that while there were no immediate financial or rank-related consequences following this move, it represented a major negative change in her professional life and career trajectory. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Muldrow constitutes a reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states that even without demotion or pay cut backs discrimination can still occur under traditional views where those acts manifest themselves; thereby extending its broader implications throughout various social, psychological, economic and political spheres.

 Detailed Case Analysis

This case brings attention to how difficult workplace discrimination can be understood especially what qualifies as an adverse action. Before this judgement courts required employees seeking relief from employment discrimination claims to show that their working conditions had changed for the worse in some tangible way or there was “severe alteration” said Justice Kennedy writing on behalf of himself along with Justices O’Connor, Souter and Ginsburg. But the supreme court has now recognized that subtle alterations may also amount to unlawful treatment if they could hurt employee’s status quo negatively affects feelings about inclusion fairness equity among other things.

 Psychological and Cultural Impacts

The ruling deals directly with mental health issues brought by perceived unfairness at work places; for instance had it been another person such as Muldrow might have felt demoted her sense worth affecting morale creating hostile environment thus leading us into understanding ‘hostile work environment’ more clearly than before through those softer forms shown above Even though these changes did not affect pay rate official status within company itself could still decrease self esteem regarding professionality which may have influenced growth perception due to any institution refusing equal treatment rights towards them because she is a woman of African American descent.

On another level, this decision could have widespread effects on corporate cultures. Organizations may have to become more self-aware and take active steps towards identifying and eliminating not only overt but also subtle forms of discrimination which might require them to be reevaluating how they assign roles or handle promotions so as ensure such processes are objective free from biasness while fostering inclusivity respect among all staff members regardless their race gender age etcetera.

 Socio-Economic and Political Implications

In terms of economy, businesses will now need to invest heavily in training programs for their employees perhaps even beef up HR departments charged with ensuring compliance at workplace; this is aimed at creating an environment where every worker can realize his full potential thereby leading higher job satisfaction levels staff retention rates well being productivity growth.

Amongst other things, this ruling also affects white workers as well as the political setting of employment law. For white employees, this case reinforces the importance of comprehending DEI initiatives and working with them too; fair treatment helps in creating a just working environment for all people. Politically speaking, this verdict could have an impact on future legislative or judiciary steps concerning work and discrimination laws. It establishes a precedent that validates subtle forms of prejudice which can be experienced by anyone thereby opening doors to wider protection against various kinds of bias based not only on gender and race but also possibly other factors. The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v City of St Louis redefines interpretation under Title VII Civil Rights Act thereby expanding what is considered as workplace discrimination. The judgement highlights that it is not necessary for bias to show up through explicit demotions or pay cuts but may include less noticeable yet significant changes in duties performed at work or status within the company due to discriminatory intentions.

To encourage deeper involvement with workplace diversity equity & inclusion programs among white staffs; this means they should take time reflecting over their own hidden biases while also considering structural inequalities present in organizations where they are employed. This can be achieved through offering more advanced trainings targeting reduction of unconscious prejudices among employees who are racially different from each other hence realizing those many subtle types which colleagues might face even without knowing about them thus fostering empathy within such places leading to better relations among members irrespective of rank held.

Additionally, the decision challenges existing norms within organisations by fostering a cultural shift towards fairness. When all members feel respected & valued because new standards were set after this ruling was made; there will likely be higher levels of collaboration between teams thus making them work closely together than before since every person’s ideas count equally now more so than ever before due to diverse backgrounds being recognized equally within these institutions post the court’s pronouncement regarding what constitutes unlawful differentiation grounded upon race and sex etcetera. What is more, it may also influence professional growth opportunities so that promotions are done based on merit and free from favouritism or discrimination against any particular group of people; this could result into creation of an environment where everyone’s abilities can be fully utilized thus optimizing work performance.

Even further, the decision sets forth a broad legal as well as ethical awareness which in turn underscores every employee’s duty to engage only with legally compliant & morally upright practices. This creates not only compliance-driven workplaces but also moral-intensive corporate cultures too; both being essential for sustained success within any organization regardless of its nature.

The supreme court has just made a decision that makes it easier for employees to sue their employers over discrimination. Before this ruling, people had to prove that something really bad happened as a result of their boss being biased against them — like getting paid less or demoted. Now if you can show even small changes in your work duties were because someone didn’t like who you are (and they have a reason), then that’s enough. This means lots more lawsuits will probably be filed claiming company X discriminated against staff member Y on basis Z when transferring them between jobs because now any complaint could count.

Effects on DEI Initiatives and Broader Societal Impacts

DEI initiatives within organizations may need to be reworked after the Supreme Court extended their interpretation of Title VII. Now all businesses are required not only avoid doing anything prejudiced but also make sure it doesn’t look that way too when moving employees around different roles. This might mean having longer courses or changing policies so everyone knows what is fair treatment under various circumstances.

For Caucasian workers and other groups affected by this judgement, it emphasizes the importance of workplaces where decisions about promotions etc happen fairly based on who deserves them most not race/sex etc factors . They should also consider how they implement diversity programs so as not create hidden biases which could be seen as unfair under new “lower” standard set by Title Seven less strictness.

Conclusion

This case sets new standards for job transfers under title seven of civil rights act 1964 effectively written by Muldrow v City Of St Louis law suit . By taking into account even slight alterations in duties performed at work place coupled with reasons which can be connected with such changes , court has lowered bar discrimination claims level hence giving more teeth to the protection offered under seventh chapter litigatorship. The broader effect therefore is that many employers will now find themselves facing increased numbers 0f complaints alleging employee X was moved from position Y because organization Z did not like A’s B.

The decision in Muldrow v. City of St Louis has far reaching implications not only for employment law but across multiple disciplines including psychology, sociology, and political science among others. In what could be described as a landmark ruling by the highest court of the land on matters related to Title VII discrimination cases arising from transfers workers make between jobs; this judgement expands our understanding about what actually constitutes acts or omissions amounting to unfair treatment at workplace which can easily fall within purview 0f anti-discrimination legislations such as those provided under civil rights act 1964 especially section seven thereof. It does so by emphasizing that besides looking at overt acts indicative of bias against an individual based on his or her protected characteristic/s one must also take into account covert actions indicative of animus towards same persons because such steps create equitable environment where everybody feels safe guarded against prejudice regardless their gender identity expression sexual orientation race color religion age national origin disability status etcetera.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City Of St Louis represents a significant shift in the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly concerning the standards required to prove discrimination in the context of job transfers. This analysis explores the judicial reasoning behind the decision, its implications for employment law, and its broader effects on society, including impacts on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and specific demographic groups such as white employees.

Reference List

Supreme Court of the United States. (2024). Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. No. 22-193. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. (2024, April 17). Supreme Court Holds That A Title VII Plaintiff Challenging A Work Transfer Need Not Show “Significant” Harm. Retrieved from https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-a-title-vii-plaintiff-challenging-a-work-transfer-need-not-show-significant-harm/