OTB Lawsuit Predictions

[denny ritner]

I love how two people have responded to the substance of the post and the rest of the posts are the same jibber jabber that's on all these threads.

 

[Nova P]

I love how two people have responded to the substance of the post and the rest of the posts are the same jibber jabber that's on all these threads.

I jibber jabber when I don't know wtf I'm talking about. It feels more honest than doing the other thing.

 

[denny ritner]

I jibber jabber when I don't know wtf I'm talking about. It feels more honest than doing the other thing.

Good to know.

 

[adb83]

I love how the same group of people can be experts in disc golf one day, biology (edit: particularly a very specific combination of developmental biology, kinesiology, and endocrinology) the next day, and law the day after that. We truly are an astonishing sport.

Must be from the University of Phoenix.

 

[foxdawg10]

I love how two people have responded to the substance of the post and the rest of the posts are the same jibber jabber that's on all these threads.

Key words are "all these threads". This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. There isn't anything new to say.

 

[DavidSauls]

The key word here is ALMOST.

It wasn't accidentally there.

Yeah, I know, it's a serious issue, more so to some people than others. Nevertheless, I found amusement in the notion of a disc golf case reaching the Supreme Court.

 

[DavidSauls]

Key words are "all these threads". This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. There isn't anything new to say.

In defense of the O.P., the thread began as speculation about the prospects of the court case, and not the issue itself.

 

[foxdawg10]

In defense of the O.P., the thread began as speculation about the prospects of the court case, and not the issue itself.

Ironically the only thing likely keeping this thread out of the landfill IS the very jibber jabber the OP is bemoaning.

 

[denny ritner]

Key words are "all these threads". This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. There isn't anything new to say.

So why are you reading this and posting nothing related to the OP?

 

[Hampstead]

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Whenever I read phrases like "either side" or "both sides" I wonder what the actual sides are. We're all just in two camps, right, on each individual "political" issue? You for or you against? But what exactly are you for or are you against?

(Not actually asking.)

 

[foxdawg10]

So why are you reading this and posting nothing related to the OP?

Entertainment I suppose. Like everyone else in this thread.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

Entertainment I suppose. Like everyone else in this thread.

I'm hanging in the corner waiting to see some ban on ban action

 

[txmxer]

(Not actually asking.)

Have to say, I'm glad you clarified that.

I appreciate ARay passing on some facts he would be familiar with given his career history.

In general, I don't agree with posts Denny has made related to the broader issue, however, I would like to think it's possible to discuss controversial topics.

As the saying goes, daylight is great disinfectant. Or at a minimum, discussing controversial subjects can help humanize the parties. That is critical to breaking down walls.

One key tactic in such debates is to dehumanize the opposition. Makes me kind of wish we could put people on an island survivor style. Forced dependence.

Or maybe it would be lord of the flies. Who knows.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Tomorrow is a hearing in the case brought by Natalie Ryan.

I'm betting that the court will grant temporary relief and she'll be able to play this weekend. Also, they will rule in her favor later in the summer on the case.

The decision will be appealed and the losing party in that decision will ask the SC to hear the case.

Whether the SC uses this as it's test case or a totally different case, I predict that the SC will ultimately rule against any trans-women being allowed to compete in school athletics (including college level) in female competitions as it violates Title IX.

Also, they will rule that other athletic organizations have the right to create rules pertaining to trans-athletes however they deem to be fair.

I predict that a lot of people will not understand the difference between Federal law and California law nor that the U.S. Supreme Court does not interpret California law. I further predict that, because the plaintiff's case is based on California law, not only will this case not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but that however its decided will settle nothing outside the State of California.

 

[Sydex]

I predict that a lot of people will not understand the difference between Federal law and California law nor that the U.S. Supreme Court does not interpret California law. I further predict that, because the plaintiff's case is based on California law, not only will this case not reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but that however its decided will settle nothing outside the State of California.

A state's interpretation of its law is mandatory in federal court. However, the SCOTUS can determine whether the state's interpretation is consistent with federal law upon the issue resting on a federal question.

 

[txmxer]

Differentiating between federal and state is interesting and creates possibilities.

But, the California effect exists. This is different than environmental issues, but I could still see the decision cascading.

 

[Dcinmd]

but that however its decided will settle nothing outside the State of California.

For better or worse California is the largest state in the country. And often times have a lot more say that other states. Many of the laws California enact are adopted by other state and sometimes Federally across the nation.

See the Lead free requirements for drinking water.

I do appreciate your distinction between State and Federal levels. :clap: Many miss that distinction.

 

[Three Putt]

In general, I don't agree with posts Denny has made related to the broader issue, however, I would like to think it's possible to discuss controversial topics.

The thing with this topic is that there are people whose basic rights as human beings are up in the air here. There are actual people on this message board whose right to do a lot of things beyond just playing disc golf are in question though various means all across this country. Hell, Nova P might still live in Missouri (although if I was her I'd bail) and Missouri's Attorney General issued an emergency rule placing extreme restrictions on gender-affirming healthcare in Missouri just a few weeks ago. So beyond just being "controversial", it's a topic that IMO would require a great deal of sensitivity. We are talking about actual people here. For this particular specific instance, we are talking about telling real people who participate on the message board that we want them to go away. That's kinda beyond "controversial" IMO.

I'll jump into a DGPT thread an speculate about their fiances and hop into a DD buyout thread and speculate nonsense with no facts; that's kinda what the Interwebz does. That's business stuff, though. If a business has a bad plan and fails, that's business. This is entirely different; I don't really feel like speculating about something that is so fundamentally important to real people on this message board.

I'm more inclined to just watch what the courts do and then not really comment that much on the ruling since I'm not an expert on either the science that Todd Rainwater is depending on to defend his ban or the specific legal issues that ban opens up. I know what I want the court to do based on my own personal belief of right and wrong, but people get away with stuff I think is wrong all the time when the law allows them. Right and legal are entirely different things.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

A state's interpretation of its law is mandatory in federal court. However, the SCOTUS can determine whether the state's interpretation is consistent with federal law upon the issue resting on a federal question.

Although this case is pending in Federal Court, the court's jurisdiction is based on the parties being citizens of different states. The only relief sought is under California Law, not federal law. The federal court where this suit is pending is only being asked to apply California law.There is no federal question (issue of federal law) asserted in the complaint and the court's ruling may not even be binding on California state courts.