Empowering Wisconsin | July 11, 2022
Liberals on the Wisconsin Supreme Court have once again humiliated themselves.
In a case involving a transgender woman, leftist legal activists put woke politics ahead of public safety, common sense and the law.
In Decision 4-3, the court ruled that the woman, who was a boy, must use his first name to register as a sex offender. The transgender woman, now identified in court records simply as ‘Ella’, thinks it’s unfair because she gave up her name along with her penis when transitioning into her new gender identity.
When Ella was 15 (and still Jim or whatever his male name was at the time – court records don’t say), he “restrained and forcibly performed oral sex on a teenage acquaintance with the assistance of a friend (Mandy) who puts a hand over the victim’s mouth to keep him from screaming.
The victim, named Alan, was 14, autistic, blind in one eye, and 6 inches shorter and more than 200 pounds lighter than his tormentor at the time, court records show.
A circuit court judge ruled that state law required the 15-year-old to register as a juvenile sex offender. The male who would later be called Ella appealed. Ella argued that upon entering the juvenile justice system as a male, “Ella realized she was a transgender girl.” She argued that being forced to register her former male name is “cruel and unusual punishment” and violates her right to free speech.
“Ella has a traditionally male legal name which she says is inconsistent with her gender identity. Ella complains that she is forced to ‘show up’ as a man every time she is required to produce her name legal.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Rebecca Grassl Bradley, rejects both arguments.
First, state law prohibits sex offenders from applying to change their name, although they can use a pseudonym if they notify the Department of Corrections in advance.
Second, well-established precedent holds that placing Ella on the sex offender registry is not “punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and it is neither cruel nor unusual.
Third, “Ella’s right to free speech does not encompass the power to compel the state to facilitate a change of her legal name,” the opinion states.
The waking state was in arms, shouting “trans phobia!” and claim the decision is an assault on the LGBTQ+ community (and anything else).
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, joined by the court’s other two liberals in Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, said the majority’s First Amendment analysis “takes an overly restrictive view of expressive conduct. and disparages importing a legal name” and “reduces the charges Ella faces due to the restriction” on the name change.
What about Alan’s burdens, or the community as a whole who has a right to know if a sex offender lives among them?
Walsh Bradley has criticized the fact that the majority cites 18th and 19th century sources to support their arguments, writing that these sources and their authors could not have conceived the nuances of 21st century conceptions of individual rights. Or sex changes – and the Kinks’ sexist words, “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it’s a mixed, confused, shaken world.”
“It’s no wonder the majority find no protection for Ella in these sources. At the time of the founding, black people could be considered property and women had no rights – transgender rights were the farthest thing from the minds of the founders,” Walsh Bradley wrote.
What an incredibly tasteless answer. Taken from Democratic Party talking points. There are many court cases from the 18th and 19th centuries that are just as legally sound and as constitutionally applicable today as they were when they were written.
As awake as they want to be, liberals in this court cannot substitute liberal politics for the rule of law.
Walsh Bradley, Dallet, Karofsky, these are tools of the radical left.
And they are collectively Empower Wisconsin’s tool of the week.