Anti-Transgender Bathroom Bills are Unconstitutional

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/02/11/anti_transgender_bathroom_bills_are_clearly_unconstitutional.html

Slate/By Scott Skinner-Thompson   02/11/2016

"As state legislatures reconvene for 2016, a rash of bills have been proposed that would exclude transgender people from using the restrooms that align with their gender identity and outward gender expression. In other words, the bills seek to prevent a transgender woman—who looks and presents as a woman—from using the women's restroom. Instead, she would be forced to use a men's restroom where she would stand out like a sore thumb. These "papers to pee" or "genital check" bills violate constitutional privacy protections."

These lsws do not pass the smell test, sand of courser will not stand up on court.  But the strategy of the makers of these laws, knowing that they will not stand up to constitutional scrutiny, just plan to delay the inevitable until a case can reach the Supremes.  Which is about a decade.

If their personal vision does not extend beyond the next election, then these consequences will fall in someone else's lap.  A side benefit of term limits is that you never have to account for your own mistakes.

The trick that the makers of these laws use to their advantage is that a law passed by a legislature remains in force until struck down.  There are a whole lot of laws out there that would be struck down if challenged by a person with standing.  And the Supremes have the right not to hear a case they consider not worthy of their attention, that is, npot based on the US Constitution..

I know of laws dealing with nationality and immigration that are clearly unconstitutional, but have been on the books and enforced for more than 50 years lacking a challenge by a person with standing.  That is the Catch-22 of civil rights.  The law is not always legal, but is always enforced.

The idea that the US Supreme Court might ultimately overturn discriminatory laws is small comfort for a transgender person who needs a place to pee right now.

He makes sense, but hard for me to imagine Alito, Scalia, Thomas, et al ever agreeing with him.

Quote from: itsApril on February 12, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
The idea that the US Supreme Court might ultimately overturn discriminatory laws is small comfort for a transgender person who needs a place to pee right now.

Maybe the courts could issue an injunction banning the bills from being enforced while they're being reviewed.

These bills are ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers money.

Not that the constitution has any meaning to the government any more but

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.