Is James Uthmeier a Communist?

I previously explained how justices like Gorsuch 1) erased private rights except the money of businesses (and occasionally medical and non-concrete speech injuries), as merely psychic interests of the individual, and 2) invented a collective psychic interest as a party with rights, which party is not mentioned in the Constitution, and exists only in the mind of communists.

This is the same imaginary party that has a right against appellate review in Hunter v. United States, and has a “uniquely important national interest” that Trump be on Colorado’s ballot in Trump v. Anderson. This is just a way for justices to insert their own personal preferences, and claim they are the arm of “the people”.

Hallucinating some collective interest, reverses the question asked by courts from “Can a particular government employee violate this individual’s preferences?”, to “Can this individual violate the state’s imagined preferences?” The answer is always “no”.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier wrote a letter objecting to Gainesville police accommodating the preferences of citizens, as legally violative of some party’s rights. Uthmeier said that letting prisoners choose whether they will be searched by a male or female “is based on a mental state that has nothing to do with the biological considerations that must be addressed when officers search detainees.”

In other words, preferences of private individuals are legally erased as merely a “mental state”. And whatever mumbo jumbo Uthmeier wants to stick on the other side, is the imagined right of the state.

The real question a court needs to ask, is whether there is an overriding state interest in violating the individual’s preference against being searched by a particular sex. The Fourth Amendment, and the Constitution, protect individuals from having their preferences violated by the state.

Uthmeier said accommodating the preferences of citizens “serves no legitimate” state interest. Uthmeier lists a set of “governmental interests” to be weighed, none of which are the preference of the private citizen. And said an individual’s own interest is “a self-reported feeling” with no value.

Uthmeier said a private citizen must choose based on what Uthmeier thinks is important. The Constitution saus Uthmeier can only choose, if the state has some written right, that overrides the cost imposed on a citizen’s preferences.

Uthmeier represents the idea, that when the government takes a dollar from a private citizen, that is always a dollar profit. But the Constitution says it is always a dollar loss. The Constitution doesn’t say the government can violate your rights to save a few dollars. Much less say that a non-money cost is not an injury.

Uthmeier said serving the preferences of prisoners, violates the Florida Civil Rights Act, by letting a citizen choose based on sex. If citizens vote for a male Governor, is the government discriminating against females? How about if, at a traffic stop, a citizen consents that his car be searched only if it is searched by a female? Accommodating the preferences of citizens is only state action, if you are incapable of perceiving individual preferences.

Uthmeier used a common trick, of finding a party — in this case a female cop — as a stand-in for his own dislike of the preferences of guys who dress like girls. Just like Justice Thomas used the victim’s family as a stand-in for some imaginary psychic collective interest, when the local prosecutor said Richard Glossip was convicted based on lies. And Justice Barrett said that deferring to a state jury violates deference to a state judge, in reality defending the right of some imaginary interest.

When you have things you like and don’t like, it’s always possible to find other people involved who like and don’t like facets of those things, and contrive a set of actors and targets to pretend not getting what you want is this person violating this other person’s rights. Uthmeier said the citizen choosing his private preferences is the state, and the immutable biological differences suffered by females are the state discriminating.

It’s an “immutable biological” fact that female officers are at a greater risk than male officers, when balancing law enforcement goals against individual rights. If a female officer is incapable of safely searching male suspects or protecting individual preferences, then according to what Uthmeier calls “the exigencies of law enforcement”, there shouldn’t be female officers, or even traffic stops.

There is always a legitimate reason for using a bigger, stronger cop. But when searching females, the individual’s interest and the state’s interest can both be served by using a female cop. But suddenly the marginal cost is a violated right when it serves Uthmeier’s preferences.

But such calculations are never rigorous. The sum is always what the arguer wants it to be. Like when Justice Powell calculated in Imbler, that prosecutors being sued creates a net cost to some imagined collective, whose interests are not actually manifested anywhere.

Such calculations are accepted uncritically as a way to pretend personal preferences are the right of some hallucinated entity. Communists can always come up with some mumbo jumbo, pretend it is the overriding right of some imaginary collective, and use it to eclipse the individual rights actually protected by the Constitution.

The state’s cost of policing, or an individual cop’s cost, can never be reduced to zero. Uthmeier would cost the private individual everything to save a penny. But then spend extra money and hire fewer females, to hire a male cop to search cross-dressers, because Uthmeier likes it. Such intractable confusion is where it always ends, when you begin by asserting the rights of a hallucinated entity that doesn’t exist. Which can only be fixed to the extent you are slipping in your own preferences in the place of the imaginary ones.

Can the state violate an individual’s rights to save a penny? No, but yes for some amount of money. Does an individual have a right to choose what sex searches him? Yes, but not at a sufficiently great cost. Do female cops have an overriding right to perfect safety that “must be addressed”? Or to harm individual preferences and spend money to adjust for biological differences, to make their safety equal to a male cop? Do female cops have a right to not search male suspects? Or to the state spending money to compensate for females being worse at the job? Must female cops be paid more to compensate for their greater risk? No. There is no party with this right, or overwhelming cost that creates it.

If local government employees find that accommodating an individual’s preferences can be done at a cost that is practical, is that illegal? No.

Is violating the individual’s preferences anyway, not to save a few pennies of safety, but based on your own dislike of cross-dressers, illegal? Yes.

Uthmeier is saying the preferences of individuals cannot suffer real or legal injuries if he doesn’t like them. But that some vague calculation of needing female cops who then risk injuries, is automatically a legally-overriding state interest.

The person with overriding rights is the person being searched. Not of female cops to have equal risk, as a stand-in for Uthmeier’s personal dislikes.

Accommodating individual preferences is an exigency of state action. But not in the minds of communists, who reduce the value of individual preferences to zero. Some people have a mental defect, where they can’t help but imagine there is a legal party with an overriding right to the things they personally like. And then use sophistry to say there is.