Posted on 05/28/2019 2:06:35 PM PDT by Steve1999
A high profile dispute over a school policy allowing s transgender pupils to choose which locker rooms and restrooms they want to use will not be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to reports. The controversial school policy that is in dispute was adopted by the Boyertown Area School District in Pennsylvania in the 2016-2017, allowing transgender students to use school facilities based on their 'identity' rather than actual sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at nnettle.com ...
Roberts is a cowering buffoon.
No. Nothing is preventing you from posting the the full content right here.
Is there something you've written that isn't suitable for Free Republic?
Admissions of wrongdoings or porn or Scientology? Why do you write
things like that on your "Nettle Blog"? You may have a mental issue.
Well, on the bright side, the Supreme Court, for a change, is paying attention to the 10th Amendment
Disappointment without the surprise.
It’s going to be up to the people and state courts to act locally. Or just don’t use public schools if one can afford not to. Many families cannot afford Charter or private schools.
Boy, The Supreme Court of Pussies is sure doing a great job of not taking responsibility for any controversial rulings, aren’t they?
If they can’t do the job they’re there for, why don’t they quit so President Trump can put in people who WILL?
The 10th Amendment is not absolute where state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections is a problem.
Noting that I am not familiar with referenced school district please consider the following.
Are legal majority citizens in referenced Pennsylvania school district being reasonably represented by school board? Or did conservative voters, if any, possibly get lazy and stay home on election day?
Charter schools are public schools.
Could be worse, if the SC rules some creep or creeps has the right to share the shower and locker room with your 13 year old daughter it will be national precedent and nothing can be done about it.Roberts is just as likely to rule for the creeps as not.
‘compelling interest’ is code for state tyranny
I’m not sure where in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the various writings of the Founders where bathroom / locker room assignments are discussed.
Since you are obviously an expert on it, could you please elucidate me on where/ why this would be in the USSC’s jurisdiction? Thank you.
Oh. I thought Charter Schools were usually privately owned and run institutions, most built around a specific core belief or approach to education. I could be way off.
I do know, most teacher’s unions seem to hate the very idea of Charter Schools with the heat of a thousand Suns.
This is an issue for lazy parents in these districts to address if they want to stop this madness.
Dont they have a PTA in these places anymore?
Why assume a gender?
Why not change it to XERertown?
First, note that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) prohibits state actors from abridging rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So if minority citizen voters in the school district can successfully argue that the school district is abridging the 1st Amendment-protected rights of religious expression and free speech, for example, with politically correct transgender bathroom policy then the school district is violating Section 1 of 14A imo.
Also, the Founding States constitutionally guaranteed each state a republican form of government, state actors obligated to respect the will of legal majority voting citizens.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
So if elected school distract board members are ignoring the voting voice of local majority citizens, then state actors are violating Article IV imo.
Also, why can’t the families whose children are victims of politically correct transgender policy argue being deprived of right to privacy like women who murder their unborn children?
The problem with the above constitutional protections is that we’re presently stuck with a corrupt Congress that has a track record for not doing its constitutionally enumerated duties to protect citizens’ enumerated protections.
That's why patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, but will also promise to do its duty to make punitive laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
The Supremes are ducking hot items.
Thanks for that explanation.
I still think it is quite a stretch for that to apply in this case, but I’ll leave it to more learned constitutionalists to fight it out. Even though I am completely against all this tranny and ‘gender identification’ nonsense, when in doubt, I’d prefer the individual states to fight it out than let Roberts and the others on the ‘Court of Final Whim’ make a decree.
As I had indicated, I don’t know any specifics about this case.
”...but I’ll leave it to more learned constitutionalists to fight it out."
Consider that Thomas Jefferson had warned us about activist judges.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823."
Also…
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.