OTB Lawsuit Predictions

[denny ritner]

Nobody is telling anyone to "go away". Many people are potentially impacted by this case beyond the few trans-players. Their feelings matter too.

 

[txmxer]

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.

We share similar beliefs (I think). In particular an individual's right to exist as they are.

You posts talks about those that believe these people should "go away". Or should not exist. The opposition seems to think it's merely a choice. Heck, I don't know what they believe TBH. Nova, et al, do exist so what now?

Although unlikely, I see no other path forward than to engage those that seem to be willing to be engaged.

Words like controversial may not carry the weight that they should, but don't let my lack of vocabulary imply that I don't see the importance of this issue or human rights in general.

Once again, what's the alternative path forward?

 

[Skamanda]

Nobody is telling anyone to "go away". Many people are potentially impacted by this case beyond the few trans-players. Their feelings matter too.

Any of those willing to engage in productive discussion and be educated, I'm willing to engage and educate. The problem is people who are being overtly dishonest, or hateful, and refuse to listen to any information that contradicts their feelings on the subject. Those people, potentially impacted or not, don't deserve my respect for their feelings in the same way that those who are concerned, and wish to learn what the truth is.

 

[Skamanda]

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.

I'm a bit more of an expert on the science, and I'm doing my best to keep quiet about the case. Even if I didn't know things that aren't public knowledge yet, this suit has really amped up those who would love to see people like me go away - and someone plastering my face on one of those anti-trans hate groups has really driven that point home, to me...

 

[Streets]

If frolf ends up on the docket, I'm sure we can expect a fair, well-thought-out decision from the esteemed justices of the SC. :|

 

[foxdawg10]

If frolf ends up on the docket, I'm sure we can expect a fair, well-thought-out decision from the esteemed justices of the SC. :|

The SC in general has been punting on similar cases, although there have been dissenting opinions from some members.

 

[da Crippler]

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.

Way too many college boys in here.:|

 

[foxdawg10]

Any of those willing to engage in productive discussion and be educated, I'm willing to engage and educate. The problem is people who are being overtly dishonest, or hateful, and refuse to listen to any information that contradicts their feelings on the subject. Those people, potentially impacted or not, don't deserve my respect for their feelings in the same way that those who are concerned, and wish to learn what the truth is.

This isn't a starting point for discussion. I feel much compassion because it really is impossible to have a discussion in a warzone.

 

[Nova P]

Over on Facebook the PDGA just posted a link to their "community standards" and reminded everyone to behave. I wonder if they know something is about to happen. . .

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

Well said.

The judge and jury (if there is one) see all the evidence, testimony, and arguments; we in the peanut gallery rarely do. They'll also look at the exact wording of the law and any precedents.

Which is why I'm generally reluctant to predict or expect particular outcomes, in high-profile cases or cases I have an interest in, but am not a part of.

 

[jenb]

They'll also look at the exact wording of the law and any precedents.

Respectfully disagree. They'll knee jerk react their way to a desired outcome and tell their clerk to write it up in a way that makes it look like they gave it some thought and then sign it.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

Over on Facebook the PDGA just posted a link to their "community standards" and reminded everyone to behave. I wonder if they know something is about to happen. . .

It's like you need air quotes around community standards, community, and standards

""Community" "standards""

 

[DavidSauls]

Respectfully disagree. They'll knee jerk react their way to a desired outcome and tell their clerk to write it up in a way that makes it look like they gave it some thought and then sign it.

Is that your opinion of decisions you agree with, also?

 

[jenb]

Is that your opinion of decisions you agree with, also?

Yes. Many law professors told us that's what actually happens. Many of them clerked at the SC.

 

[DavidSauls]

Well, perhaps we should do away with trials, and have a plebiscite on contentious cases without all the expense of lawyers and testimony and those big courthouses.

 

[jenb]

Well, perhaps we should do away with trials, and have a plebiscite on contentious cases without all the expense of lawyers and testimony and those big courthouses.

Creating the illusion of justice is a full time job that requires the confidence of the masses. The expense, delay, and pageantry are essential components of the gestalt delusion.

 

[denny ritner]

Creating the illusion of justice is a full time job that requires the confidence of the masses. The expense, delay, and pageantry are essential components of the gestalt delusion.

Movie quote?

 

[jenb]

Movie quote?

JenB original, but inspired by my law profs' teachings of yore. More original wording than original thought.

 

[Sydex]

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.

Diversity Jurisdiction also requires an amount in controversy to exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and any fees. I haven't read the complaint or any of the filings yet. I'm curious if DGPT/PDGA will just file a 12(b) seeking lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hard to see how the $75k jurisdictional amount would be met.

 

[Sydex]

Yes. Many law professors told us that's what actually happens. Many of them clerked at the SC.

Can confirm. If anybody is interested, Chad Oldfather has a very influential paper on this topic titled "Aesthetic Judging" which compares juridical jurisprudence to judging sports like figure skating.