Correct, which as I said: "At least a SCOTUS decision," where "amend the Constitution" is a significantly higher bar to meet.

If you think we're going to amend the Constitution to ban gender affirming care for inmates you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished?

Inmates received this care under Trump 1 (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/politics/trump-prisons...

They've tried stopping it in Trump 2 but have been enjoined by courts (because USG is obligated to provide it, Constitutionally): https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporaril...

▲

tyleo 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> you're living in outerspace, but I suppose your position is that politicians are supposed to just say shit that has the correct hate-valence and then it's as-good-as-accomplished

Your reaction proves the point that this is a purity test.

I’m not taking a stance one way or the other but you aren't able to engage without arguing against points I didn’t make.

	▲	estearum 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What? Your argument: It is a purity test for politicians to say that transgender inmates should receive care (which Kamala passed, to the detriment of her electability) My argument: It is actually SCOTUS who decides this (or would require a Constitutional amendment, which is obviously absurd)