Thanks for that explanation.
I still think it is quite a stretch for that to apply in this case, but I’ll leave it to more learned constitutionalists to fight it out. Even though I am completely against all this tranny and ‘gender identification’ nonsense, when in doubt, I’d prefer the individual states to fight it out than let Roberts and the others on the ‘Court of Final Whim’ make a decree.
As I had indicated, I don’t know any specifics about this case.
”...but I’ll leave it to more learned constitutionalists to fight it out."
Consider that Thomas Jefferson had warned us about activist judges.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823."
Also…
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.