Montana Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr — who is the only transgender lawmaker in the state — and her legal team are weighing appealing to the state Supreme Court after a district court judge ruled denying Zephyr’s request to return to the House floor she was banned from.
Where can I contribute?
#DigDeepFolks
What has happened in this case is just so wrong. To think somebody has to go to the Supreme Court to right this? In America?
This homophobia and transphobia is accelerating along with antisemitism, white power and fear of “other”. Don’t know the answer, but fairly certain that voting for Democrats would help. Hate is not the answer.
One thing I’ve noticed is that you have to read text to find out the judge didn’t rule on the issue but,
the court’s power is limited and granting Zephyr’s request “would require this court to interfere with legislative authority in a manner that exceeds this court’s authority".
How many folks only read the headline?
I will openly admit to occasionally finding the nattering of some LGBTQ spokespersons (see what you get for listening to NPR?) tiresome enough that I’ll switch them off. But I found Zephyr to be as serious as a heart attack in demanding she be heard and allowed to represent her constituents. I hope she manages to slap some sense into these nitwits. Hell, some manners might be a place to start. Good to see Big John Tester in her corner.
Waste of time, in my humble and non-lawyerly opinion. First, because the MT SC would almost certainly dodge, I mean decline the issue because it’s moot, the lege having now adjourned. And second, because the original ruling is actually on pretty solid constitutional ground (did I mention that I’m not a lawyer, and very probably talking utter bollocks?) here – in our three-branch system, the courts aren’t supposed to interfere in how the legislature conducts its own affairs any more than the legislature is supposed to interfere in the courts.
Isn’t that right, Mister Jordan?
I just realized that Jordan’s voice is as firmly lodged in my memory as Gingrich’s. Filed under: “Things That Really Make My Teeth Hurt”.
I can see this reasoning, but what I fear is that they came for Zephyr a week before the end of the legislative session, she sued, and the judge says it’s not a matter for the judiciary to decide.
So what happens next year when another woman speaks a little too passionately, or mocks/pokes holes in a male colleague’s understanding of science or biology? Will she too be shut out even if the session doesn’t end in week, or a month?
Oh, you have a file folder for that, too?
It’s getting more and more overstuffed, these days.
I agree that, in principle, the courts shouldn’t be jumping into the legislature’s affairs, but it’s a bit of a sticky wicket for the cases where the legislature is acting discriminatorily against its own members. If the Lege won’t redress your legitimate grievances, who can you turn to for relief?
At some point, someone has to do something egregious enough that someone can/should be able to intervene. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the situation makes me think of things like Little Rock, AR and the National Guard. If the Montana Legislature was refusing to integrate and seat black members duly elected by their districts, would the courts have jurisdiction to step in if the prospective members sued?
I believe they’re called “voters”.
Montana has had a long and proud history of electing people from both political parties, largely based on their actual merits. The current acute outbreak of FOXitis may not last.
Appeal please. Lower court ruling was horse shit.
Of course they must appeal. The lower courts are saying that they can’t adjudicate the state constitution. This can’t stand.
From the article, paragraph 1
Montana Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr — who is the only transgender lawmaker in the state — and her legal team are weighing appealing to the state Supreme Court after a district court judge ruled denying Zephyr’s request to return to the House floor she was banned from.
Except that happens to be the new dodge from conservative courts. A recent ruling in Florida even when as far as to say the individual dismissed by DeSantis (I can’t recall the position and details) was illegitimately fired, but it was beyond their authority to do anything about it.
Yes, that may be legitimate in some circumstances. But it’s also awfully tidy to be able to throw up your hands and say, “nothing I can do” when what you’re actually doing is sanctioning the action by relinquishing the authority you actually do possess if you simply had the stones to use it.
Her attorneys are from the Montana ACLU
In my observation, in general only about a third of commenters read the article before posting.
That was a county DA who is a Dem elected in Tampa. But now he’s going after a state attorney in Orlando.
So why doesn’t a vindictive majority of any party just expel the opposition party besides the bad optics? Wouldn’t that ensure they win every vote by a landslide?