the district court’s robust factual findings on the benefits of these treatments for transgender youth
Translation: The district court judge is a pedophile who abused his power to enter false information into the record to further his disgusting fantasies.
"factual findings" is code, here, & is being misused.
a "factual finding" is something special that courts of appeal do not touch. it is issued by a judge or jury in response to court testimony & the rationale is that if you were not present in the courtroom, you should not try to armchair quarterback & second guess.
However, in most situations, this dynamic does not apply. This is such a case.
here,
the district court’s robust factual findings on the benefits of these treatments for transgender youth
would not have been based on live courtroom testimony, nor would such an issue be amendable to live testimony since the whole point is that it is based on studies, not on a recollection of factual events.
thus, it is something that the trial court is not in a unique position to determine. instead, it is something the court of appeal can review de novo, meaning the court of appeal can make up its own mind.
this Clinton appointee knows all that, but since she agrees with the trial court judge, she lies.
Translation: The district court judge is a pedophile who abused his power to enter false information into the record to further his disgusting fantasies.
Like the robust number of studies that ALL say the overwhelming majority of “gender dysphoric” kids grow out of it when not put on puberty blockers?
"factual findings" is code, here, & is being misused.
a "factual finding" is something special that courts of appeal do not touch. it is issued by a judge or jury in response to court testimony & the rationale is that if you were not present in the courtroom, you should not try to armchair quarterback & second guess.
However, in most situations, this dynamic does not apply. This is such a case.
here,
would not have been based on live courtroom testimony, nor would such an issue be amendable to live testimony since the whole point is that it is based on studies, not on a recollection of factual events.
thus, it is something that the trial court is not in a unique position to determine. instead, it is something the court of appeal can review de novo, meaning the court of appeal can make up its own mind.
this Clinton appointee knows all that, but since she agrees with the trial court judge, she lies.
For those of us that actually like reading rulings: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0146p-06.pdf
Now investigate the judge.