View Single Post
      08-29-2019, 08:33 PM   #14
Brigadier General

Drives: 340i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
It should be a rule that before anyone comments on a court decision they read it. The only way to understand the law is to read the decisions that make up the law. People who read one news article and think they're qualified to call the a court "stupid" are the stupid ones.

First, understand that appellate courts are generally not free to interfere in findings of fact by a lower court unless they are "clearly erroneous". It's pretty clear, from reading the decision that the state did not argue that the lower court's findings of facts were "clearly erroneous" :
The State did not dispute that Edmo’s gender dysphoria was a sufficiently serious medical need to trigger the State’s obligations under the Eighth Amendment.
Therefore, if the findings of fact are not interfered with, as a legal question, how is the decision wrong? it was argued on narrow legal grounds and reads pretty coherently.

I did not read the lower court decision, I am not suggesting it was correct or that there is or should be an obligation to treat gender dysphoria within the prison system as a general rule. I did, however, read the 9th Court decision and it was only open to the appellate court to accept or reject the arguments made by the State. Those arguments were all narrow, technical, procedural ... not to merits. Seems to be a well reasoned decision rejecting the appeal.

Don't worry, I won't engage in any replies from anyone who didn't bother to read the f*ing decision:
You canadian, so your most likely unaware that the 9th circuit is consistently overruled for passing stupid decisions.