It’s a pretty striking announcement. (The official order isn’t up yet, but it’s been leaked.)
And there’s no telling when we will have grand juries back.
Schools are reopening in October, but not the courthouses. I’m not saying which is right (I have no idea) but lots of criminal defense lawyers in town are frustrated.
And... if it’s not safe enough to conduct trials, how is it safe — or fair — to keep folks locked up at FDC and FCI (where another person just died). Both FDC and FCI are complete disasters right now. Families were protesting outside of FCI this weekend because of the conditions there.
It’s hard to see when the criminal justice system in South Florida will return to normal.
The criminals should agree to a moratorium on violent crime....then there won't be any new arrests to worry about. Or, we could just let all criminals know that we are having a 5-month purge where no arrests will be made and no naredowells will be locked up for misdeeds.
ReplyDeleteIts funny you say the lawyers are frustrated when its their clients are suffering.
ReplyDeleteLets hear your plan for how to conduct trials with a raging pandemic.
that dbr article about threats to defense counsel is the dumbest thing ive ever read.
ReplyDeletethe real story is a few SDFL judges have been working hard to try test cases and find a way back safely... but they are repeatedly getting shut down. the lawyers know who's trying and we should help them find a way.
ReplyDeleteThat is a fantastic idea let’s let out all the young violent criminals into an economy where they have no jobs
ReplyDeleteThere has been no announcement schools will reopen in October. The announcement was schools will reassess at the end of September if an October 5 reopening is possible. A previous reopening plan suggested schools would only reopen if dade county enters phase 2.
ReplyDelete11:55 please tell us who's shutting down these brave judges
ReplyDeleteIf the dumb assess who live in this place wore masks and socially distanced schools and courts would be open sooner. Sadly people don't wear masks or socially distance because it infringes their freedoms.
ReplyDeleteWho'd you rather as AG?
ReplyDeleteHarris, Klobuchar or Preet?
All of them are cop loving libs...would not aggressively go after crooked cops....so none of the above.
ReplyDeleteGive me David Markus with a mandate to prosecute lying and violent local cops, and I'll take it.
No grand juries, no indictments, no new clients.
ReplyDeleteAt least appeals backlogs are tightening up.
Not surprising that Pryor writes an offensive dissent in transgender bathroom case.
ReplyDelete@1128, share link or case name
ReplyDeleteHere's the bathroom opinion: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201813592.pdf
ReplyDeleteAnd Pryor's dissent is not at all offensive. Or maybe better put, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
What the plaintiff in this case is effectively seeking is the elimination of objective markers of sex. Read the introduction to the majority's opinion. Let's not pretend, as the majority appears to do, that "know[ing] 'with every fiber of [your] being' that [you are] a boy" overrules the objective fact that one has a vagina, is growing breasts, and menstruates, or that this fibrous "knowing" creates an objective reality - it does not. The "knowing" experienced by the plaintiff creates a personal subjective reality, like religion. And like your religion should not be imposed on others, your personal subjective gender reality should not be forced on others. This kid doesn't want to use a girl's bathroom? Fine, use the perfectly functional single sex bathroom.
Pryor artfully quotes Justice Ginsburg who explained that “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, [and] perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Society's long established privacy expectations in single sex bathrooms should not be disturbed because of the subjective reality held by a tiny minority - however sad or insulting that may be to some (as it is quite sad and insulting to some that privacy, correctly, protects the right to an abortion).
The school board made a reasonable accommodation for this plaintiff's condition by providing private single user bathrooms. There was no mention in the opinion that this option was insufficient except in that the plaintiff just didn't like it and found it "profoundly 'insulting.' . . . 'isolating,'depressing,' humiliating,' and burdensome." #tough. There was a bathroom, and it appears to have been clean, functional, and available. That's all that is and should be required.
I suspect that the "insulted" among you will attack my comment, and me personally. Have it. I won't be commenting further on this topic.
2:28 not offended at all at your post. I just feel sorry for you.
ReplyDeleteThe record makes clear that the plaintiff wants to be referred to as him, a boy, or female. Pryor takes pains to not give her that basic dignity and refers to her as a "female who identifies as a male."
Judge Martin is spot on here: "The dissenting opinion’s central flaw is that it does not meaningfully reckon with what
it means for Mr. Adams to be a transgender boy. The dissent describes Mr. Adams as “a
female.” See Dissenting Op. at 47 (calling Mr. Adams “a female who identifies as a male”).
The dissent fails to acknowledge Mr. Adams’s gender transition, his gender dysphoria and
clinical treatment, or the unique significance of his restroom use to his wellbeing. The dissent
also ignores the finding of the District Court that, in light of Mr. Adams’s social, medical, and
legal gender transition, he is “like any other boy.” Adams, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 1296–97
(resolving the parties’ dispute “over whether Drew Adams is a boy”).
You lost, why would we engage your rantings.
ReplyDeleteIt is so seldom that we pull a win, we will just enjoy while you listen intently trying to figure out the birth gender of the person you are pooping one stall over from.