Stephen Ferguson
@stephenferguson.bsky.social
Yale Law School '25 | Hermeneutics | Lonergan | AMDG
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
1: "I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed”
2: "We cannot and will not comply with this unjust law”
3 wrote that Obama had told Catholics, "To Hell with your religious beliefs”
4 asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
2: "We cannot and will not comply with this unjust law”
3 wrote that Obama had told Catholics, "To Hell with your religious beliefs”
4 asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
April 14, 2025 at 1:10 PM
1: "I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed”
2: "We cannot and will not comply with this unjust law”
3 wrote that Obama had told Catholics, "To Hell with your religious beliefs”
4 asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
2: "We cannot and will not comply with this unjust law”
3 wrote that Obama had told Catholics, "To Hell with your religious beliefs”
4 asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
The placement of "trans issues" here is, without exaggeration, one of the most depraved things I've ever seen in the pages of this publication.
Of course the NYT sees the "DEI" stuff positively & is neutral on anti-trans discrimination
March 1, 2025 at 3:59 PM
The placement of "trans issues" here is, without exaggeration, one of the most depraved things I've ever seen in the pages of this publication.
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
They’re really going for it:
A position that no government lawyer ever took during the first Trump administration because they felt they couldn’t get away with it is suddenly legally defensible.
Government says the plaintiffs’ argument from precedent amounts to “overheated rhetoric.”
A position that no government lawyer ever took during the first Trump administration because they felt they couldn’t get away with it is suddenly legally defensible.
Government says the plaintiffs’ argument from precedent amounts to “overheated rhetoric.”
![A screenshot of a legal brief by the new Trump administration, which reads:
“Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits.
As to the merits, the Citizenship Clause provides: "All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Under the plain terms of the Clause, birth in the United States does not by itself entitle a person to citizenship. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Id. Contrary to Plaintiffs'
overheated rhetoric, that phrase does not mean simply being subject to federal jurisdiction to tax or regulate someone. Among the many reasons why Plaintiffs' position is incorrect, the term "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof' in the Fourteenth Amendment harks to tandem language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Act and the Amendment coterminously, explaining that the Act served as the "initial blueprint" for the Amendment, Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389 (1982), and that the Amendment in turn "provide[d] a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out" in the Act, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 775 (2010). The Act provided, as
relevant here, that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." § 1, 14 18 Stat. at 27 (emphasis added). The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment is best read to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act—i.e., those who are "subject to any foreign power" and "Indians not taxed."”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jech7rem6vijss4euf4fijao/bafkreieafsvjxyibvlct5blxosxyxtlprvilbbzuk3mgutkvbp3txb2d54@jpeg)
January 23, 2025 at 2:21 PM
They’re really going for it:
A position that no government lawyer ever took during the first Trump administration because they felt they couldn’t get away with it is suddenly legally defensible.
Government says the plaintiffs’ argument from precedent amounts to “overheated rhetoric.”
A position that no government lawyer ever took during the first Trump administration because they felt they couldn’t get away with it is suddenly legally defensible.
Government says the plaintiffs’ argument from precedent amounts to “overheated rhetoric.”
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
I think what’s going on here that these people are trying to find some true binary relating to biological sex. Genital morphology won’t do it. Sex chromosomes don’t do it. So they’ve retreated to gamete size. I think the use of large and small cell is also a hedge in this direction, not prudishness.
January 21, 2025 at 7:01 PM
I think what’s going on here that these people are trying to find some true binary relating to biological sex. Genital morphology won’t do it. Sex chromosomes don’t do it. So they’ve retreated to gamete size. I think the use of large and small cell is also a hedge in this direction, not prudishness.
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
"More Republican legislatots have been arrested for bathroom misconduct than trans people"
www.complex.com/life/a/amand...
www.complex.com/life/a/amand...
More Republican legislators arrested for bathroom miscond...
More Republican lawmakers face bathroom misconduct arrest...
www.complex.com
January 10, 2025 at 4:47 PM
"More Republican legislatots have been arrested for bathroom misconduct than trans people"
www.complex.com/life/a/amand...
www.complex.com/life/a/amand...
And this is all completely different from academic freedom, which regards the right of higher ed faculty to research/publish/teach without interference from the government, administration, etc.
January 9, 2025 at 9:42 PM
And this is all completely different from academic freedom, which regards the right of higher ed faculty to research/publish/teach without interference from the government, administration, etc.
Like a lot of conservative free speech discourse, this idea conflates freedom of conscience with free speech (and then makes conscience = the right to be uncivil and discriminate...).
We require certain kinds of speech all the time in this country, e.g., product labeling requirements
We require certain kinds of speech all the time in this country, e.g., product labeling requirements
January 9, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Like a lot of conservative free speech discourse, this idea conflates freedom of conscience with free speech (and then makes conscience = the right to be uncivil and discriminate...).
We require certain kinds of speech all the time in this country, e.g., product labeling requirements
We require certain kinds of speech all the time in this country, e.g., product labeling requirements
Reposted by Stephen Ferguson
And there's evidence to the contrary! Trump did surprisingly well with young men but he did not win those who said things like "I worry I can't afford a house or kids" -- he won those who said things like "trans men aren't really men"
youngmenresearchinitiative.substack.com/p/new-survey...
youngmenresearchinitiative.substack.com/p/new-survey...
January 5, 2025 at 4:39 PM
And there's evidence to the contrary! Trump did surprisingly well with young men but he did not win those who said things like "I worry I can't afford a house or kids" -- he won those who said things like "trans men aren't really men"
youngmenresearchinitiative.substack.com/p/new-survey...
youngmenresearchinitiative.substack.com/p/new-survey...
This is giving Socrates in Symposium
December 22, 2024 at 2:06 AM
This is giving Socrates in Symposium