Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2024, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Democrats need to introduce a bill forbidding Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth from entering a woman's bathroom!

We need to make more statements rather than sit on the sidelines and watch the Repubs do their shit. It's time we reacted.

Intelligent, experienced, empathetic. She was in the state Senate in Delaware. We elected her, the whole state dammit. I would just love to tell Nancy Mace to go fuck herself

Every republican has a necrotic heart. Hate does that.

to do in Congress.

Good grief, this is pathetic.

As a taxpayer, I am pissed that they wasted time on this when there are so many other critical things to do (I am thinking).

Save your politicking when you are actually running for office again and don't waste taxpayers' money on these idiotic single issue topics/red button topics.

Guess we'll need a genital check?

Who is supposed to enforce this rule that is clearly targeted to bully one specific individual?

Nancy Mace would 100% drop the Zyklon-B into the mechanism. Hell, she'd volunteer for that duty.

I think it's time to require all restrooms to be gender neutral. There's really no reason to have men and women's separate restrooms anymore.

People have SO many hangups about bathrooms. It is strange.

When a Five Guys opened in my town several years ago, it had two single-use restrooms, and the signs on the door had both men and women on them. These restrooms had one toilet and one sink in them, and were made for one user at a time. People must have complained, because today one of them is labeled Men and the other, Women.

And yet, everyone uses the same bathrooms on planes and no one has a problem. Everyone uses the same bathrooms in their own homes without issues.

This proposal from Mace is just cruel. Wonder what all of those creepy republican men think about using the restroom with McBride??

It's the only way that makes sense. Real women should be fine with it.

Not sure what you mean by that.

in a basement, very far from Mace's office, with a lovely Transphobic Bigots Only sign on it. All the Republicans are welcome to use it.

This is the logical conclusion of requiring the use of birth gender restrooms. Going to be a lot of trans men in ladies' rooms around the country which will be a lot more alarming to the people in the restrooms than a transwoman would be.

And without some sort of genital check before entry there would be no way to tell other than self-identification. Which seems to be the problem most proponents are citing - people nefariously misidentifying themselves.

That's really the only answer here.

Her bill, if it ever passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President would probably be declared unconstitutional as a bill of attainder against transgendered people. Her own words about when she initiated the bill and who she was targeting with it would be the core of any lawsuit to have it declared unconstitutional.

This bill is gross and should not exist.

and Mace is offensive.

This is no way to treat a colleague.

Make it mandatory viewing for Mace.

Now we know the reason behind this foolish time-waster.

If a man or woman is in the bathroom with them?!?!!? I've been at clubs where there were women in the men's bathrooms, nobody cared!

I miss that place.

I sure don’t. I used to go to gay clubs to dance and have fun and never once had to worry about a man hitting on me. It is a pretty safe place for women.

As for the bathrooms? Lol, you pee where you pee. I had no problem with it.

I doubt that most women care. This is another bullshit issue because the GOP has no policies or ideas. Just a perpetual faux outrage machine.

All showers in schools. Like Starship Troopers. Just mix em all in. Seems fine for a guy like me. I'd be fine with it.

... concerts, theaters and there weren't riots or increases of sexual violence.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/best-stand-up-pee-devices.html

a transgender man would the same happen to him? I just don’t understand the fear. Bathrooms have doors.

What a bitch Mace is.

among the GOP is so blatantly on display.

They have no shame whatsoever!

A week or so ago I thought she sounded like one of the more moderate (well by the standards of these times) Republicans..she had voiced some support for abortion and for LGBT+ rights according to her wiki page.
Looks like she is going full on Maga cult.

Nance. No one will be trying to look at your wretched nazi bits. Afraid they'll find bronzer where it shouldn't be?

*IF* the bill were to be enacted before January 20, Biden would veto it.

*IF* the bill were to be enacted post-January 20 and Trump signed it, the new statute would be susceptible to legal challenges:

A) Bill of Attainder.
A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.

Courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
The law inflicts punishment.
The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.

In Nixon v. Adm'r of General Services, the court determined that punishment for the purposes of bills of attainder will determined by considering:
Whether the statute would historically be viewed as punitive.
Whether the statute, viewed in terms of burdens and severity, can reasonably be said to further non-punitive purposes.
Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals.

This bill by Nancy Mace is designed to marginalize and persecute Sarah McBride and nobody else as there are no other transgendered members of the House presently or prospectively.

or

B) The Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Permissible Discrimination
It is important to acknowledge that a government is allowed to discriminate against individuals, as long as the discrimination satisfies the equal protection analysis outlined below, and described in full detail in this Santa Clara Law Review article.

U.S. Constitution
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Equal Protection Analysis
When an individual believes that either the federal government or a state government has violated their guaranteed equal rights, that individual is able to bring a lawsuit against that governmental body for relief.

Based on the type of discrimination alleged, the individual will first need to prove that the governing body actually discriminated against the individual. The individual will need to prove that the governing body's action resulted in actual harm to them. After proving this, the court will typically scrutinize the governmental action in one of several three ways to determine whether the governmental body's action is permissible: these three methods are referred to as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis scrutiny. The court will determine which scrutiny the individual will be subject to, relying on legal precedent to determine which level of scrutiny to use. It is important to note that courts have combined elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection#:~:text=Overview,in%20similar%20conditions%20and%20circumstances.