The Three Whisky Happy Hour: A PIG Goes to Market & The ‘L-Word’

But, but, it’s about a father’s LOVE!

My first decent from @Lucretia: While I think a majority of people understand parental rights the proper way; the majority of people working in the school, medical, legal system do not share the same understanding. It would then behoove SCOTUS to spell out the obvious to protect the rights of parents and child development. Especially because school, medical and legal bearcats and professionals have so much "potential" power over the family. The asymmetrical relationship needs to be clearly defined in order to put these people back in their place.

I cant tell you how much contempt I have even for kindergarten "teachers". You walk into their "classroom" and speak with them and they think they know more than you on how to raise your kid. One must understand that their masters degree in babysitting gives them license to be your child's sexual development shaman.

Noell Colin the gadfly (View Comment):

My first decent from @Lucretia: While I think a majority of people understand parental rights the proper way; the majority of people working in the school, medical, legal system do not share the same understanding. It would then behoove SCOTUS to spell out the obvious to protect the rights of parents and child development. Especially because school, medical and legal bearcats and professionals have so much “potential” power over the family. The asymmetrical relationship needs to be clearly defined in order to put these people back in their place.

I'm with @Lucretia that these laws for parents, etc. are to be left to the states - the court needs to act aggressively to make most laws this way - decided at the state level. Federalizing it is a horrifying thought, and Bostock is a great example why.

I instead descent from @Lucretia's dismissive take on the L-word, she's wrong to broadly dismiss one of the worst decisions the court has ever made, the damage it had on future judgements re: legislative powers and the vile abuse of due process qualifies it as a terrible case.

Noell Colin the gadfly (View Comment):

...One must understand that their masters degree in babysitting gives them license to be your child’s sexual development shaman.

This is hilarious by the way. Ha.

Of course the Originalist judges on the SCOTUS should use their power to right the direction of the court. All three branches should be populated with folks who will use their power to direct the country in the direction we want. Everyone should work hard to put GovCo. back into the small box of limited and enumerated powers that it was shipped in. Playing pattie-cake is assinine. Ugh. We should have had Bork and Thomas.

On the slavery thing, Booker T. Washington made similar observations in his Atlanta Exposition Speech (which you should re-read if you haven't for awhile, history has proven Mr. Washington had it right and Mr. Du Bois was wrong) and even said things that would probably leave most modern folks aghast. It was the 60s/70s Marxist-soaked resurrections of resentment that has stained the topic of race through today. Well, that and good 'ole hard work from Pres. Obama to bring it back from the improvements it was going through in the 90s & 2000s - thanks Obama!

Noell Colin the gadfly (View Comment):

My first decent from @Lucretia: While I think a majority of people understand parental rights the proper way; the majority of people working in the school, medical, legal system do not share the same understanding. It would then behoove SCOTUS to spell out the obvious to protect the rights of parents and child development. Especially because school, medical and legal bearcats and professionals have so much “potential” power over the family. The asymmetrical relationship needs to be clearly defined in order to put these people back in their place.

Quickz (View Comment):

I’m with @ lucretia that these laws for parents, etc. are to be left to the states – the court needs to act aggressively to make most laws this way – decided at the state level. Federalizing it is a horrifying thought, and Bostock is a great example why.

I instead descent from @ lucretia’s dismissive take on the L-word, she’s wrong to broadly dismiss one of the worst decisions the court has ever made, the damage it had on future judgements re: legislative powers and the vile abuse of due process qualifies it as a terrible case.

Noell Colin the gadfly (View Comment):

…One must understand that their masters degree in babysitting gives them license to be your child’s sexual development shaman.

This is hilarious by the way. Ha.

I understand anytime the feds get involved with anything problems arise. But I don't view this as a states rights issue. There is no circumstance in which a non parent's opinion should supersede that of the parent save physical/mental abuse.
I can see pitfalls in this regarding abuse, "misgendering is abuse" situation. But this would be covered under something to the extent of "parental rights include developmental decisions" And sexual development would fall under that.

THEN you can leave it up to the states to decide what parents can do medically to their kids. As in, if puberty blockers for the purpose of "sex changes" are okay.

The fundamental parental right needs to stem from the federal level. Or else if you cross state lines you might loose your kid. As we are seeing now.
With my federal way, CA still might offer puberty blockers, but if the kid gets trafficked to CA, CA cant be a "sanctuary" state for the child, the parent can still go and pick up their kid. BUT if you leave it up to the states, well, CA says you don't have any right over what the kid does in respect to blockers, so CA will keep your kid.

Parental disagreements would also be a state issue. Not a federal issue.