Supreme Court agrees to write law deciding transgender bathroom issue

[ShootSpeeders]

This should NOT be settled by unelected federal judges. The tenth amendment clearly makes this an issue for STATE legislatures to settle. The supremes should say - we have no jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court to decide 'battle of the toilets'

oct 28 2016 Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide which bathrooms should be used by transgender people, a highly sensitive question with national political resonance.

The case involves 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born a female but identifies as a male. Grimm filed suit to be allowed to use the boys' bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Arguments in the politically charged question will be heard between now and late June, making it easily one of the highest-profile cases set for the court's current term.

The Obama administration has said public schools should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies, not the birth gender.

Federal authorities, seeking to fight discrimination, have threatened school systems with a loss of federal funds if they fail to comply.

But more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, bitterly opposed to that approach, are challenging the federal government in court.

 

[pwjohn]

This should NOT be settled by unelected federal judges. The tenth amendment clearly makes this an issue for STATE legislatures to settle. The supremes should say - we have no jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court to decide 'battle of the toilets'

oct 28 2016 Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide which bathrooms should be used by transgender people, a highly sensitive question with national political resonance.

The case involves 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born a female but identifies as a male. Grimm filed suit to be allowed to use the boys' bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Arguments in the politically charged question will be heard between now and late June, making it easily one of the highest-profile cases set for the court's current term.

The Obama administration has said public schools should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies, not the birth gender.

Federal authorities, seeking to fight discrimination, have threatened school systems with a loss of federal funds if they fail to comply.

But more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, bitterly opposed to that approach, are challenging the federal government in court.

 

[Stratford57]

 

[Silhouette]

I take this as a good omen; since the USSC overstepped its authority June 2015. They're likely going to turn down the "right" of deranged males to enter women's bathrooms and showers at will. That's the only reason they would hear the case because even the experts are saying transgender is a mental issue and has no place demanding normalcy to the demise of 17 million women rape victims who would be forced to share those showers with those deranged men as a matter of law with no recourse...fearing lawsuits should they act to protect themselves...as they crumple into the fetal position from a HUGE PTSD trigger..

So take light heart. I believe the USSC wants this case so they can say to the Rainbow Cult "you nearly got two of us impeached from the bench when we stuck our necks out for you in 2015...and one of our members is dead because of that...so you can fuck off thinking your deranged "T" element can waltz into women and girls' showers when they feel like it. ENOUGH!"

Citation: Hively v Ivy Tech, 2016

 

[SassyIrishLass]

SCOTUS cannot write law, only interpret it

 

[Silhouette]

Too bad SCOTUS isn't the night moderator at USMB. Look at what they did to this thread without reason stated or permission: New Civil Rights Movement: Children-Americans.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SCOTUS cannot write law, only interpret it

They write laws all the time and then call it an interpretation. And when they do interpret a law, it is supposed to apply only in that case, not millions of others. THINK, fascist.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I take this as a good omen; since the USSC overstepped its authority June 2015. They're likely going to turn down the "right" of deranged males to enter women's bathrooms and showers at will.

Yes - but that's not the issue of this thread. The SC has no business even getting involved in this. The tenth amendment clearly makes this a state issue as is true 99.9% of the issues in america. THINK

 

[Silhouette]

I take this as a good omen; since the USSC overstepped its authority June 2015. They're likely going to turn down the "right" of deranged males to enter women's bathrooms and showers at will.

Yes - but that's not the issue of this thread. The SC has no business even getting involved in this. The tenth amendment clearly makes this a state issue as is true 99.9% of the issues in america. THINK

I know it's a states' issue. But the USSC has vengeance on its mind. One of its own lies dead because they stuck their neck out for the Rainbow Reicht; and it was something his mind simply couldn't be part of (no doubt thinking back to "Lawrence v Texas and his part in the mistake that precedent got rolling). Look for the USSC to smack down the Church of LGBT; if for no other reason than to protect their own mirage as "an impartial jury"...

 

[jillian]

This should NOT be settled by unelected federal judges. The tenth amendment clearly makes this an issue for STATE legislatures to settle. The supremes should say - we have no jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court to decide 'battle of the toilets'

oct 28 2016 Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide which bathrooms should be used by transgender people, a highly sensitive question with national political resonance.

The case involves 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born a female but identifies as a male. Grimm filed suit to be allowed to use the boys' bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Arguments in the politically charged question will be heard between now and late June, making it easily one of the highest-profile cases set for the court's current term.

The Obama administration has said public schools should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies, not the birth gender.

Federal authorities, seeking to fight discrimination, have threatened school systems with a loss of federal funds if they fail to comply.

But more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, bitterly opposed to that approach, are challenging the federal government in court.

You have no clue what the court does. And of course rightwingnuts want to deny rights to people that shouldn't surprise you.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You have no clue what the court does. And of course rightwingnuts want to deny rights to people that shouldn't surprise you.

Rights?? HAHAHA. Men invading a lady's BR is now a right??? Get help please.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

This should NOT be settled by unelected federal judges. The tenth amendment clearly makes this an issue for STATE legislatures to settle. The supremes should say - we have no jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court to decide 'battle of the toilets'

oct 28 2016 Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide which bathrooms should be used by transgender people, a highly sensitive question with national political resonance.

The case involves 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born a female but identifies as a male. Grimm filed suit to be allowed to use the boys' bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Arguments in the politically charged question will be heard between now and late June, making it easily one of the highest-profile cases set for the court's current term.

The Obama administration has said public schools should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies, not the birth gender.

Federal authorities, seeking to fight discrimination, have threatened school systems with a loss of federal funds if they fail to comply.

But more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, bitterly opposed to that approach, are challenging the federal government in court.

The Supreme Court cannot write laws.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

This should NOT be settled by unelected federal judges. The tenth amendment clearly makes this an issue for STATE legislatures to settle. The supremes should say - we have no jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court to decide 'battle of the toilets'

oct 28 2016 Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide which bathrooms should be used by transgender people, a highly sensitive question with national political resonance.

The case involves 17-year-old Gavin Grimm, who was born a female but identifies as a male. Grimm filed suit to be allowed to use the boys' bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.

Arguments in the politically charged question will be heard between now and late June, making it easily one of the highest-profile cases set for the court's current term.

The Obama administration has said public schools should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies, not the birth gender.

Federal authorities, seeking to fight discrimination, have threatened school systems with a loss of federal funds if they fail to comply.

But more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, bitterly opposed to that approach, are challenging the federal government in court.

You have no clue what the court does. And of course rightwingnuts want to deny rights to people that shouldn't surprise you.

Transgender doesn't mean you have special rights. It means you mentally Ill.

 

[Jackson]

SCOTUS cannot write law, only interpret it

But, I believe that they can refuse to hear it. Can they recommend it to the states? Isn't there a statement in the Constitution that says any thing that is not spelled out in the Constitution for federal imposition, that it goes to the states. States rights?

 

[Brynmr]

This is just another example of why our Republic will end with a Clinton victory. This election will decide if America lives or dies.

And to all you Libs - I could care less what you think. You people are the problem.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

This is just another example of why our Republic will end with a Clinton victory. This election will decide if America lives or dies.

And to all you Libs - I could care less what you think. You people are the problem.

Yep

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Supreme Court cannot write laws.

They do it all the time you fool. Roe v wade legalized abortion throughout america and plyler v doe forced all 50 states to give free k-12 to illegals. Just 2 of hundreds of cases where the SC wrote laws.

Judges are free to give rulings in cases but that is only supposed to apply in that one case. Instead the SC says their rulings are now the "law of the land".!!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Isn't there a statement in the Constitution that says any thing that is not spelled out in the Constitution for federal imposition, that it goes to the states. States rights?

Yes of course, It's the tenth amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Silhouette]

I take this as a good omen; since the USSC overstepped its authority June 2015. They're likely going to turn down the "right" of deranged males to enter women's bathrooms and showers at will.

Yes - but that's not the issue of this thread. The SC has no business even getting involved in this. The tenth amendment clearly makes this a state issue as is true 99.9% of the issues in america. THINK

I know it's a states' issue. But the USSC has vengeance on its mind. One of its own lies dead because they stuck their neck out for the Rainbow Reicht; and it was something his mind simply couldn't be part of (no doubt thinking back to "Lawrence v Texas and his part in the mistake that precedent got rolling). Look for the USSC to smack down the Church of LGBT; if for no other reason than to protect their own mirage as "an impartial jury"...

Just wanted to add to my own post that the USSC seems to behave on impulse and emotions. Exactly the opposite of the clear and ruthless logic they're required to apply to the law, taking into account how present day verdicts will affect the future in a real and measurable way. I believe this is why even Scalia agonized so intensely over Obergefell...because back during Lawrence, he predicted its arrival as a direct result of acting emotionally with Lawrence: ripping away the state's rights to monitor & set parameters for behaviors. At the very least, Lawrence should've been written up differently, with exactly language specifying that homosexuals would never be granted the right to marry unless the voters approved of it.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court cannot write laws.

That's odd, because just last Summer they did, Upholding Obergefell for gays to marry without a single direct or implied citation from the Constitution that would support a behavior having "rights"...

Their verdict added that implication to the Constitution where it didn't even remotely exist as implied before. In fact, the Constitution is very careful where behaviors are involved. When they do have protection, they get their own direct, delineated wording specifying exactly which behavior is covered. Nothing implied allowed when it comes to behavior in the Constitution; matter of fact. It's that very truth that causes the USSC to exist.

Now because of precedent, the USSC MUST ratify polygamy and incest marriage (both also behaviors) orientations because of the 14th Amendment & equality. Or, they must overturn Obergefell. Those are their only two choices. And, haves funs wit' dem shits..