I’ll be in Denver in a couple days with badge, ID, and a concealed carry Glock 43X with two spare mags.
Any Denver or Colorado cops have advice regarding your laws? This will be the first time I’m making use of the LEOSA act.
The Democratic Socialists of America have released a new program. Many of the talking points in the program are what I would consider the "usual" positions of democratic socialists: Free healthcare, rent control, public ownership of corporations, etc. etc.
Though there were some positions in the platform that made me wonder if all democratic socialists agree with or not, such as:
• Abolish police
• Abolish prisons
•Abolish the Pentagon
• End deportations/Open the border
• Abolish the electoral college
• Replace the Presidency
•Replace the Supreme Court
• Abolish the Senate
•Support all unions except police unions, which should be abolished
How many of the aforementioned policies do democratic socialists actually agree with? What, if anything, do you disagree with on? Is there anything that you think shouldn’t be a part of the official platform?
What interests me in particular is the replacement of the executive and judicial branch of our federal government and limiting the legislative branch to the house only. Though there have always been some parts of the constitution that the DSA disagrees with, this 2026 program suggests the biggest overhaul to our constitution that they have called for yet. The interesting part is that in order to accomplish goals such as abolishing the senate, they will first need two-thirds of the senate to support it. It makes me wonder why some of these positions were put into the program if they are not realistically achievable. At what point does this stop being progressive reform and just become outright opposition to the constitution?
This question is addressed to democratic socialists or those who align themselves very similarly.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf
Today the Supreme Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia preventing men from competing in women’s school sports. The majority wrote: “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.” The court ruled 9-0 that Idaho and West Virginia did not violate Title IX. They ruled 6-3 that the laws don’t violate the equal protection clause.
Quote: The term “sex” in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity.” The Court affirmed that Title IX refers to biological sex rather than gender identity, allowing states to prevent men from competing in women’s sports, but it stopped short of holding that this is required nationwide. I understand the Court generally tries to decide only the issues necessary to resolve the case before it, but I’m struggling to see the distinction here. If educational institutions across the country that receive federal funding are subject to Title IX, and Title IX is interpreted to distinguish based on biological sex rather than gender identity, it seems the Court could have addressed whether that interpretation should result in a nationwide requirement or remain a state-by-state choice.
That said I expect this issue will return to the Supreme Court, especially given the DOJ investigation into possible Title IX violations in California. If the Court has provided their interpretation of Title IX, shouldn’t that interpretation apply nationwide rather than only in states like Idaho and West Virginia? If not, what is the legal basis for allowing different states to apply different standards under the same federal statute? Should states like California be making changes after this decision?
EDIT: This is not the place to voice your opinion on the Supreme Court’s “secret motives” behind the decision. This is a place to discuss the legal ramifications of the decision, what effects it will have, how different states will handle it, etc etc.