California city council votes to pay $900 in "universal income" to... transgender and "nonbinary" residents only

For years now, Democrat political leaders have sought to make transgender people a "specially-protected class." Pelosi introduced a bill at the beginning of 2021 to add "or gender identity" to every operative clause of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act."

Now the mayor and city council of Palm Springs, California have come up with a faabulous program to give low-income residents up to $900 per month--as long as they identify as transgender or nonbinary.  All members of the city council voted for the program.

The city will spend $200,000 in tax dollars on the first year of the program.

Now perhaps a few of you are thinking "Aren't the laws of the U.S. supposed to apply equally to all?  If that's true, how can it *possibly* be Constitutional to give trannies an extra $900 a month *more* than other poor residents get under the normal welfare rules?"

Glad you asked.  The first thing is that the mayor of the wealthy city is a male-to-female tranny, and all the members of the oh-so-sophisticated city council wanted to show the others how virtuous they were, by voting for the program.  (And none of 'em wanted to buck the mayor's great plan.)

Could some citizen file a lawsuit to get this unconstitutional plan declared unconstitutional?  Sure.  But who in Cali is willing to risk being sneered at as a "hater"?  Cuz that's sure as hell what the left would do.  Don't know if you've noticed but in todays U.S. anyone who opposes trannies gets fired in short order.

Also, anyone filing such a lawsuit has to pay their attorney's fees out of their own pocket, while the cost of defending against the suit will be paid from taxpayer funds, courtesy of the esteemed tranny mayor.  

Since these lawsuits can take five or six years to completely play out, the legal costs can reach millions.  Few citizens can spare that kind of money, but the mayor will use tax dollars to defend.  Sweet deal, eh?

But on a deeper level, liberal judges have become experts at allowing city governments to do anything they wish--even if clearly unconstitutional--by smugly noting that "the people" can vote for all manner of ghastly things, but then RULING that if local citizens don't like it, the easily-used remedy is for citizens to vote the bastards out.  

Of course this rationalization is only used when a liberal judge likes whatever a city council or county or state did.  If a city does something the same judge does NOT like, suddenly the Constitution springs to life, requiring the judge to strike down the offending law or city ordinance.

Example: No one has challenged the demand that one show photo ID to open a bank account or get a loan or apply for welfare or buy a home or rent an apartment.  No one has ever claimed that requiring photo ID for these things discriminates against racial minorities.  But if a state legislature dares to pass a law requiring photo ID to vote, suddenly *that particular instance* of requiring ID is "suppressing minority votes."

The courts are corrupt, including the supreme court.  Congress is corrupt.  And obviously the bidenfail*harrisjoke administration is corrupt.  The evidence mounts daily.