AZ’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, won't defend AZ's “Save Women’s Sports Act”

[johnwk]

.
See: Toma Vows To Appeal Ruling On Save Women’s Sports Act


“Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma announced on Friday that the Legislature intends to appeal a federal judge ruling that is temporarily blocking the enforcement of the “Save Women’s Sports Act.” The Act protects girls from playing on teams with biological boys who identify as trans.”

The article goes on to point out AZ’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, “refused” to do her job and defend the Act. The question is, why has she refused to do her job?

Fortunately, AZ’s Speaker of the House Ben Toma, and Senate President, Warren Petersen, have stepped in to defend the Act in court.

JWK

"Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs".Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

 

[excalibur]

Yep, another Democrat spoogemonkey. And probably didn't win the election on top of that.

The leftoid Democratic Party Cult, destroying America from within.

 

[1srelluc]

I don't know, I think men should just sit this one out and let the virtue-signaling bitches that started it sort it all out.

Now if they decide to use their figurative pimp hand on the virtue-signaling bitches and tell them about themselves that would be just fine.

 

[johnwk]

Yep, another Democrat spoogemonkey. And probably didn't win the election on top of that.

The leftoid Democratic Party Cult, destroying America from within.

Aside from the fact that AZ’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, “refused” to do her job and defend the AZ “Save Women’s Sports Act”, the other "Party Cult" in this attack on women's sports is the Obama appointed judge, Jennifer Guerin Zipps, who perpetuated a lie in order to issue an injunction, to allow males to invade female sports.


The outright lie is that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the States, and people therein, from adopting laws which make a distinction based upon sex. The fact is, the states and people therein wisely rejected the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s which would have, if adopted, prohibited distinctions in law based upon sex. The Nineteenth Amendment is the only amendment in our federal Constitution which does in fact prohibit a distinction in law based upon “sex”, but that prohibition is specifically with respect to the right to vote, being denied based upon sex.


The irrefutable fact is, the Fourteen Amendment’s clause which judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps relies upon to block Arizona’s law, was specifically adopted and intended to forbid distinctions in state laws in a very narrow area, i.e., based upon “race, color or previous condition of slavery”, and does not, nor was it intended to, preclude a State’s Legislature to enact laws making distinctions based upon sex which in the wisdom of the State’s Legislature promote the general welfare of the people of Arizona.


Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps, violated her oath to support and defend our Constitution, and especially so with respect to our system’s separations of powers between its Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, when she took it upon herself to substitute her personal judgement for that of the Arizona’s elected Legislature, and for that she ought to be punished and removed from her office of public trust.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Bob Blaylock]

 

[Lastamender]

.
See: Toma Vows To Appeal Ruling On Save Women’s Sports Act


“Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma announced on Friday that the Legislature intends to appeal a federal judge ruling that is temporarily blocking the enforcement of the “Save Women’s Sports Act.” The Act protects girls from playing on teams with biological boys who identify as trans.”

The article goes on to point out AZ’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, “refused” to do her job and defend the Act. The question is, why has she refused to do her job?

Fortunately, AZ’s Speaker of the House Ben Toma, and Senate President, Warren Petersen, have stepped in to defend the Act in court.

JWK

"Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs".Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

Of course she won't. AZ. will now support any policy the illegitimate administration knows will insult the common sense of it's citizens. It is how you make things worse and that is their number one priority.

 

[johnwk]

Of course she won't. AZ. will now support any policy the illegitimate administration knows will insult the common sense of it's citizens. It is how you make things worse and that is their number one priority.

And where is the outrage from normal, everyday American citizens?

The only outrage I see is coming from a handful of radical domestic enemies whose perverted and destructive desires are put into effect by notoriously evil judges, who work hand in hand with them, U.S. District judge Jennifer Zipps being the latest judge in this group.

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

 

[johnwk]

Fox News gives airtime to and covers males being allowed to invade women's sports.​

Seems that Fox News is one of the few media outlets giving female athletes a platform to shed light on the devastating effects of allowing males to compete in female sports events.

.


.
Why is our popular media not speaking out against judges who block state legislation, such as Arizona's “Save Women’s Sports Act”?

 

[Lastamender]

And where is the outrage from normal, everyday American citizens?

The only outrage I see is coming from a handful of radical domestic enemies whose perverted and destructive desires are put into effect by notoriously evil judges, who work hand in hand with them, U.S. District judge Jennifer Zipps being the latest judge in this group.

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

You think the MSM will tell you what the polls after the election in AZ. said? They proved Lake was cheated. You do not hear them because no one reports on them. Try again, traitor.

 

[johnwk]

You think the MSM will tell you what the polls after the election in AZ. said? They proved Lake was cheated. You do not hear them because no one reports on them. Try again, traitor.

Just imagine if the Equal Rights Amendment had been adopted in the 1980s and added to our Constitution, it would then be a violation of the ERA for a state to adopt legislation such as the "Save Women's Sports Act".


As it turns out, Phyllis Schlafly was absolutely correct in fighting against the adoption of the ERA, and that it would, if adopted, eventually lead to same sex marriages and force women into the draft.

And there were others who were mocked and ridiculed for thinking, if the ERA were ever adopted, it would also lead to men in women’s bathrooms, men into women’s sports, and erase all commonsense distinctions in law made between men and women.

Seems quite clear those who fought against the adoption of the ERA were absolutely correct in their concerns. Unfortunately, a number of today's judges have decided to ignore our written constitution and impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, even to the extent of subjugating common-sense protections in women's sports.

JWK

"Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs".Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

 

[Resnic]

I don't know, I think men should just sit this one out and let the virtue-signaling bitches that started it sort it all out.

Now if they decide to use their figurative pimp hand on the virtue-signaling bitches and tell them about themselves that would be just fine.

Let's be honest, not a lot gets done without men.

And women, real women that is, need all the allies they can get.

 

[HeyNorm]

Fox News gives airtime to and covers males being allowed to invade women's sports.​

Seems that Fox News is one of the few media outlets giving female athletes a platform to shed light on the devastating effects of allowing males to compete in female sports events.

.


.
Why is our popular media not speaking out against judges who block state legislation, such as Arizona's “Save Women’s Sports Act”?

Because they can get away with it. Now boycott the first few weeks of NCAA Football. And this thing ends there and then.

 

[Mac-7]

.
See: Toma Vows To Appeal Ruling On Save Women’s Sports Act


“Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma announced on Friday that the Legislature intends to appeal a federal judge ruling that is temporarily blocking the enforcement of the “Save Women’s Sports Act.” The Act protects girls from playing on teams with biological boys who identify as trans.”

The article goes on to point out AZ’s Attorney General, Kris Mayes, “refused” to do her job and defend the Act. The question is, why has she refused to do her job?

Fortunately, AZ’s Speaker of the House Ben Toma, and Senate President, Warren Petersen, have stepped in to defend the Act in court.

JWK

"Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs".Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

It took a little digging to find out what K already knew - she’s a slime ball - aka a democrat politician

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just imagine if the Equal Rights Amendment had been adopted in the 1980s and added to our Constitution, it would then be a violation of the ERA for a state to adopt legislation such as the "Save Women's Sports Act".

As it turns out, Phyllis Schlafly was absolutely correct in fighting against the adoption of the ERA, and that it would, if adopted, eventually lead to same sex marriages and force women into the draft.

Not to mention allowing men into women's restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. They wouldn't even have to claim to be “trans”. It would be illegal to protect women from male predation in such settings, because excluding men from women's facilities would constitute sexual discrimination.

Ditto for men wanting to compete in women's sports.

Some forms of sexual discrimination are necessary and proper, and the ERA would not have allowed for it at all.

The LGBTpbiWTF crap is creating, in a roundabout way, some of the evils that the ERA would have directly caused.

 

[blackhawk]

War on women.

 

[johnwk]

Not to mention allowing men into women's restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. They wouldn't even have to claim to be “trans”. It would be illegal to protect women from male predation in such settings, because excluding men from women's facilities would constitute sexual discrimination.

Ditto for men wanting to compete in women's sports.

Some forms of sexual discrimination are necessary and proper, and the ERA would not have allowed for it at all.

The LGBTpbiWTF crap is creating, in a roundabout way, some of the evils that the ERA would have directly caused.

And activist judges are using their office of public trust to impose their personal views as the rule of law.

JWK
"Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs".Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).