Escrevo, pesquiso, entre outras coisas. Livro mais recente: "Ilícito absoluto: a família Almeida Teles, o coronel C. A. Brilhante Ustra e a tortura" (Patuá, 2023). Sítio: https://opalcoeomundo.blogspot.com/
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JONATHAN LEE, ET AL. v. POUDRE
SCHOOL DISTRICT R–1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 25–89. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, respecting the denial
of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do
not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain
concerned that some federal courts are “tempt[ed]” to avoid
confronting a “particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]”: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights “when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender
or assists in that process.” Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School Dist., 604 U. S. ___,
___–___ (2024) (ALITO, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1–2) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S.
57, 70 (2000) (plurality opinion)). Petitioners tell us that
nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s genderidentity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and
influence on those choices. Pet. for Cert. 24. The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the
“great and growing national importance” of the question
that these parent petitioners present. Parents Protecting
Our Children, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreibznytltv7mexkfzlraxhxhcwvilqwad7bmgdmbtd643ln7wd375y@jpeg)
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Joe R. Feagin, Brendan Nyhan, Gavin A. Schmidt , and 23 more Joe R. Feagin, Brendan Nyhan, Gavin A. Schmidt, Steve Peers, Christopher Wright, Rosemary A. Joyce, Jane E. Fountain, Sanford F. Schram, Janet Murray, Aaron Sojourner, Lesley Bartlett, Stacy D. VanDeveer, Scott A. Imberman, Dean Eckles, Brian Keegan, Kent Johnson, Tom Stoppard, Ann Bartow, Nicole Guenther Discenza, Pádua Fernandes, Charles T. Mathewes, Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Prakash Kashwan, Nathan P. Kalmoe, Élisabeth Vallet, David Darmofal
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Erich Fromm, Martin Paul Eve, Smith , and 3 more Erich Fromm, Martin Paul Eve, Smith, Julia Lynch, Juan Ramón, Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
Reposted by Pádua Fernandes
![come within the idea of an insurrection." Id. at 410. To this, Madison replied that "there might be
riots, to oppose the execution of the laws, which the civil power might not be sufficient to quell."
Id. (emphasis added). Patrick Henry pressed the issue, charging that granting power of "calling
the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately" would be "unprecedented," and a
"genius of despotism." Id. at 412. To this, Madison noted the "great deal of difference between
calling forth the militia, when a combination is formed to prevent the execution of the laws, and
the sheriff or constable carrying with him a body of militia to execute them in the first instance;
which is a construction not warranted by the [Militia] clause." Id. at 415.
Confronted with such concerns, even federalist proponent Alexander Hamilton rejected
the notion that the militia could enforce domestic law, opining that given "the supposition of a
want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of colour, it
will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia is as uncandid as it is illogical." The Federalist No. 29,
at 188 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961). To Hamilton, then, it was nothing
more than an "exaggerated and improbable suggestion]" that the federal government would
command one state's militia to march offensively into the territories of another, given how
assuredly such conduct would invite "detestation" and "universal hatred" by the people of the
would-be usurper. Id. at 186-87.
On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Many of the concerns debated
by the Founders reflect in its contours. Regarding the militia, the Founders chose to vest
Congress-not the President—with constitutional power "to provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," U.S. Const. a…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreidxudeqidfeqok6ljzacxgtkdhisbhrfxl43krhavjuo7mrvkboui@jpeg)
