Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Men-pretending-to-be-women (identical meaning to "transgender" for purposes of clarity and legal definition), just got nudged back from the door with the sign "women" on it.....let me explain.
Just recently, a federal judge Ordered Loretta Lynch's DOJ lawyers either stripped of their bar standing across state lines, or to take remedial legal ethics classes. The reason? The judge found, as well as other courts found, that Lynch's DOJ has be purposefully misleading the courts and the American public about law and legal practice in their various endeavors. The judge also sent a warning to Lynch that any future misleading will not be tolerated: 179125570172
And the footnote just below that paragraph (all near the end of the Order from the link above)
And further..
It's that last bit that creates the snag for men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender). In the DOJ's recent bullying of public schools to allow boys to shower with girls or face withdrawel of federal education funds, Lynch cited improperly (she's a lawyer, she knows how to read), Title IX of the education code. That is intentional misleading of the public. Nowhere in Title IX does it talk about males pretending to be females:
******* Overview Of Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972, 20 U.S.C. A§ 1681 Et. Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice
On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies.
********
Do you see anything about males pretending to be females? Neither do I. What's worse for Lynch is that Justice Ginsburg already spoke and clarified Title IX with exact respect to segregated bathrooms (and obviously showers, locker rooms etc.) marked "women" (or "men") outside:
Lynch representing to the American public that Title IX covers boys-pretending-to-be-girls (transgender) is intentional deception of the Pubic.
But it gets worse. Lynch's threats to schools were more veiled,not direct. Her threats to North Carolina came with punch and promise...and a separate suit filed by her Office against NC. In the suit, it's entire hinge & premise relies on Lynch's purposefully false interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In it Lynch claims that the Act covers men-pretending-to-be-women "as a protected class". NOWHERE in the US Constitution nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act does it even remotely insinuate, much less say men-pretending-to-be-women are a "protected class".
What the DOJ is up to is using "incremental subterfuge from below". And that's going to come out in the future in a big way in other LGBT legal advances. Only Congress can create specific language to add or remove from the US Constitution. Judges are not allowed to add extra and new language to the Constitution. The purpose of the Highest Court of Appeal, the USSC, is to INTERPRET the Constitution against legal challenges from below that come before it. What the USSC in collusion with lower courts has done, is to create a Trojan Horse of ghost-writing new terms to the Constitution's 14th Amendment...each blaming the other for "the ultimate source of the findings/interpretation" (new law not written/ratified by Congress). Lynch looks to a lower court ruling in violation of the Constitution (because men-pretending-to-be-women are to be found not even remotely insinuated in the Constitution as "protected") to justify her lawsuit against North Carolina. She should know better. And in fact I argue she DOES know better. She is pushing it, and it's something the judge warned her not to do.
So, wisely, North Carolina asks Lynch in its own lawsuit to clarify what her department means by "transgenders having rights" (men-pretending-to-be-women having "rights"). Lynch now on her heels and scrambling, must HONESTLY and with ethical intent, define to the American public, and particularly North Carlolina how it is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers a behavior and not a static thing like sex or race. NC attorneys (and Lynch) knows she can't do that. Because if one odd behavior like men-pretending-to-be-women (transgenders) has protected status from the majority regulation, which other odd behaviors the majority objects to do not?
Lynch knows she's backed into a corner on the clarification issue. And now she has a court Order warning her not to deceive the public further...or else...
If I were Lynch, and wanted to keep my job, I would very meekly retract my veiled threats to public school boards across the country...and...I'd retract my lawsuit against NC. She is heading into a box canyon and there is literally no way out for her unless she very quickly retraces her steps.
Remember on the men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender) issue with bathrooms, showers etc., there's a real, actual static class protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Ginsburg subsequent statement: the 17 million women rape survivors who would be plunged into PTSD the instant they saw a man-pretending-to-be-a-woman standing naked next to them in the showers behind a door marked "women"... These people ACTUALLY DO have Constitutional protection. Men-pretending-to-be-women DO NOT.
The USSC is NOT allowed to interpret lower court rulings that mislead the Public about the actual wording of the Congress-ratified 14th Amendment. And, last time I checked, the USSC Justices are also required to be in good standing with the bar in order to continue their jobs..
Just recently, a federal judge Ordered Loretta Lynch's DOJ lawyers either stripped of their bar standing across state lines, or to take remedial legal ethics classes. The reason? The judge found, as well as other courts found, that Lynch's DOJ has be purposefully misleading the courts and the American public about law and legal practice in their various endeavors. The judge also sent a warning to Lynch that any future misleading will not be tolerated: 179125570172
And the footnote just below that paragraph (all near the end of the Order from the link above)
And further..
\
It's that last bit that creates the snag for men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender). In the DOJ's recent bullying of public schools to allow boys to shower with girls or face withdrawel of federal education funds, Lynch cited improperly (she's a lawyer, she knows how to read), Title IX of the education code. That is intentional misleading of the public. Nowhere in Title IX does it talk about males pretending to be females:
******* Overview Of Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972, 20 U.S.C. A§ 1681 Et. Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice
On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies.
********
Do you see anything about males pretending to be females? Neither do I. What's worse for Lynch is that Justice Ginsburg already spoke and clarified Title IX with exact respect to segregated bathrooms (and obviously showers, locker rooms etc.) marked "women" (or "men") outside:
Lynch representing to the American public that Title IX covers boys-pretending-to-be-girls (transgender) is intentional deception of the Pubic.
But it gets worse. Lynch's threats to schools were more veiled,not direct. Her threats to North Carolina came with punch and promise...and a separate suit filed by her Office against NC. In the suit, it's entire hinge & premise relies on Lynch's purposefully false interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In it Lynch claims that the Act covers men-pretending-to-be-women "as a protected class". NOWHERE in the US Constitution nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act does it even remotely insinuate, much less say men-pretending-to-be-women are a "protected class".
What the DOJ is up to is using "incremental subterfuge from below". And that's going to come out in the future in a big way in other LGBT legal advances. Only Congress can create specific language to add or remove from the US Constitution. Judges are not allowed to add extra and new language to the Constitution. The purpose of the Highest Court of Appeal, the USSC, is to INTERPRET the Constitution against legal challenges from below that come before it. What the USSC in collusion with lower courts has done, is to create a Trojan Horse of ghost-writing new terms to the Constitution's 14th Amendment...each blaming the other for "the ultimate source of the findings/interpretation" (new law not written/ratified by Congress). Lynch looks to a lower court ruling in violation of the Constitution (because men-pretending-to-be-women are to be found not even remotely insinuated in the Constitution as "protected") to justify her lawsuit against North Carolina. She should know better. And in fact I argue she DOES know better. She is pushing it, and it's something the judge warned her not to do.
So, wisely, North Carolina asks Lynch in its own lawsuit to clarify what her department means by "transgenders having rights" (men-pretending-to-be-women having "rights"). Lynch now on her heels and scrambling, must HONESTLY and with ethical intent, define to the American public, and particularly North Carlolina how it is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers a behavior and not a static thing like sex or race. NC attorneys (and Lynch) knows she can't do that. Because if one odd behavior like men-pretending-to-be-women (transgenders) has protected status from the majority regulation, which other odd behaviors the majority objects to do not?
Lynch knows she's backed into a corner on the clarification issue. And now she has a court Order warning her not to deceive the public further...or else...
If I were Lynch, and wanted to keep my job, I would very meekly retract my veiled threats to public school boards across the country...and...I'd retract my lawsuit against NC. She is heading into a box canyon and there is literally no way out for her unless she very quickly retraces her steps.
Remember on the men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender) issue with bathrooms, showers etc., there's a real, actual static class protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Ginsburg subsequent statement: the 17 million women rape survivors who would be plunged into PTSD the instant they saw a man-pretending-to-be-a-woman standing naked next to them in the showers behind a door marked "women"... These people ACTUALLY DO have Constitutional protection. Men-pretending-to-be-women DO NOT.
The USSC is NOT allowed to interpret lower court rulings that mislead the Public about the actual wording of the Congress-ratified 14th Amendment. And, last time I checked, the USSC Justices are also required to be in good standing with the bar in order to continue their jobs..
