https://www.wsj.com/opinion/rep-laurel-libby-supreme-court-transgender-athlete-facebook-post-c35a3c1c?st=ayp86t&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink: Maine State Representative Laurel Libby posted a picture of a student on the podium for winning the girl’s pole vault (see below), which allowed her team to win the state title by one point. She showed a public picture showing the winner previously competing in the boy’s pole vault, criticizing ME law that allows transgender males to compete in female competitions. It is my understanding that she named the student. According to the WSJ, the Maine constitution allows the House to expel members with a 2/3 vote. By a majority vote, the Democrats censured her for endangering the student and demanded that she apologize. When she refused, the Speaker banned her from speaking and voting in the House, under a law based on someone being in breach of House rules. The Democrats claim they did not expel her, and that it was “modest punishment” that merely required her “to apologize”. According to a poll cited by Fox, 64% of the Maine public opposes permitting transgender athletes to compete in female competitions (29% approve; 7% undecided). Ms. Libby had been banned from representing her constituents for three months when the Supreme Court removed her punishment pending resolution of the complaint. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson objected. The WSJ reported that Jackson called the decision “both inequitable and unwise”. I think it is more pertinent that Justice Jackson opined that the watering down of the court's standards for granting emergency relief is hardly a model for sound decision-making and will cause a surge in requests for 'extraordinary' intervention — at earlier and earlier stages of ongoing lower court proceedings.
Here's my take:
- Ms. Libby could have made her
point without posting the pictures and naming the athlete. She should have been willing to
apologize for identifying the athlete while reiterating that it was appropriate for
her to cite the incident and criticize state law. (I’m guessing the Democrats would have accepted
that, ending the problem. If not,
then they’d be more clearly wrong.)
- Taking away her right to
represent her constituents indefinitely seems to be an inappropriate penalty. They already had censured her. I think that was enough.
- Justice Jackson has a good point,
but taking away a representative’s right to vote indefinitely is significant,
so I would have voted with the majority.
However, I would have liked the WSJ to publish that aspect of
Justice Jackson’s complaint. I
think they could have fit it into their editorial; if not, they could have
published a more complete article and referred to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment