It will be if he decides he's really Tammi Robinson.

No she wasn’t. She could protest and silently pray in millions of other locations without any consequences at all. She was arrested in a small specific location where to do so was considered interfering with the rights of others.

She was warned, having done the same thing several times before, but ignored the warnings. She wanted the publicity and the attention of the gullible. Which she got.

Her transgression wasn’t what she did. It was where she did it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It will. Deadnaming is illegal.

No it won’t. It only applies if there is a legal change of name.

If you read what I said previously I accept that if Yaxley-Lennon changes his name legally then I would respect that and use it. So would the courts.

His legal name is Steven Yaxley-Lennon. If it becomes Tasmin Robinson by a legally binding deed poll then fine. Tasmin she will be.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

In the infinitesimally unlikely event of this happening then yes. Because it would only be here and I would anticipate support rather than condemnation. In any case I am well used to it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I see that Special Counsel Jack Smith has referred the claim made by Trump for immunity in the case against him for attempting to overturn the last election result directly to the Supreme Court.

This claim is widely regarded as a long shot that would always end up in the Supreme Court where, because of that Court’s composition, it stood any chance of success.

The real reason was to delay the trial. It has already been dismissed by the Judge and, of course, appealed. The Appeal is pending. Delays could result in any trial not happening until after the election, which could then set it back another 4 years if Trump won. Who knows what Trump would try to do to the Court, or to the Justice Dept, in those 4 years. You can be sure Mr Smith won’t be the SC.

Now the SC has bypassed the appeal process and gone directly to the Supreme Court with a request for an urgent resolution.

I see this as a big test for the Supreme Court. Will they hear it, or refuse until after an appeal? Will they take their time to list it? Will they take months to reach a decision?

Will those Justices appointed by Trump or who are right leaning anyway allow their political connection to an ex President to interfere with their loyalty to the Constitution? You would hope not, but this is the USA. I can well imagine some of them trying to delay the process in the hope they don’t have to rule on it.

This is a big deal. It’s new territory.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.