Posted on 06/19/2020 7:31:51 PM PDT by Hojczyk
The Department of Justice has filed a Statement of Interest in the Idaho litigation. In announcing the decision to do so, Attorney General Barr said:
Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports is fundamentally unfair to female athletes. Under the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause allows Idaho to recognize the physiological differences between the biological sexes in athletics. Because of these differences, the Fairness Act’s limiting of certain athletic teams to biological females provides equal protection.
This limitation is based on the same exact interest that allows the creation of sex-specific athletic teams in the first place — namely, the goal of ensuring that biological females have equal athletic opportunities. Single-sex athletics is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes and should stay rooted in objective biological fact.
The Statement of Interest develops this argument. The DOJ contends that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution does not require states to abandon their efforts to provide biological women with equal opportunity to compete for, and enjoy the life-long benefits that flow from, participation in school athletics in order to accommodate the team preferences of transgender athletes. Put differently, the Constitution does not require Idaho to provide the special treatment plaintiffs request, under which biological males are allowed to compete against biological females if and only if the biological males are transgender.
So obvious are these points that it’s distressing the Justice Department needs to make them. But the DOJ does.
It doesn’t matter whether the points are obvious. All that’s likely to matter in the end is whether John Roberts agrees with them, and will be willing to say so.
Waiting for John Roberts to swish his tail into this one.
Sorry, AG Barr, but the US Supreme Court recently ruled you cannot bar a male from doing things a female is allowed to do, and vice versa. A male doesn’t even have to identify as a female anymore. All he has to do is try out for the team, and it’s against the law to stop him. When he’s done, he can also go shower with the ladies, as we cannot have separate but equal facilities anymore. It’s all right there in the Civil Rights Act—cannot descriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual preference.
That’s how bad the recent SCOTUS ruling was. Apply their test...is it something you allow one sex to do? If so, you cannot stop the other sex from doing it, too.
Sports have been binary: Men’s & Women’s.
Now we need binary squared:
Men’s
Women’s
Trans men to women’s
Trans women to men’s
Any woman who has a problem with this should take it up with John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and all those other stunted misfits on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s a travesty of justice that Secretariat was never allowed to compete for a gold medal in track at the 1972 Olympics. :-P
Agree, but maybe the DOJ is stepping into this to point out how wrong Roberts was and make Roberts and his rulings out to be the jackass that he is. I mean if I was that type of person, even though it goes against what I believe, I would on purpose try this or have my kids try this and sue a school system and say “Stop me from being on a womens team or going in their locker room.”
If such a ruling allowing premier race horses would pound Pres Trump, CJ Roberts would probably affirm.
I can’t wait for the people who are always screaming about “believing in science” to tell us about how a boy can magically become a girl by wishing it were so.
What sports? Sports is dead.
How about we put down a man who wants to become a woman and vise versa, and maybe in the next life when they get reincarnated, they can have their wish?
Oddly John Roberts had a long history of constitutional decisions in lower courts that abiding by the Constitution as written As supreme court justice and chief justice his rulings seem bizarre.
Chief Justice John Roberts is a function of only two logical explanations. Firstly he is the most incredible left wing stealth candidate in history. I think is comromised in his personal life. He is being blackmailed. If such he is more evil than those that blackmail him as he has then such abandoned the rule of law.
Or perhaps he is just a screaming liberal that fooled us all. My opinion is blackmail.
You can’t stop one sex or the other from doing something but does that mean they have to do whatever it is in the same place at the same time? Why can’t we just have separate but equal locker rooms, sports teams, etc.? Let me guess, too much common sense.
Have teams based on biology and not gender which is now considered mutable. Schools should have XX teams and XY teams with gender perception irrelevant.
Yep.
The institutionally indoctrinated legal experts at DOJ probably wouldn't be as challenged with trying to explain what the Equal Protections Clause (EPC) of the 14th Amendment (14A) does not require the states to do if they would start reading Free Republic.
More specifically, liberal justices seem to have "overlooked" that one of the earlier Supreme Court cases to examine 14A's EPC as it relates to biological birth sexes versus today's politically correct deviant sexes is the case of Minor V. Happersett (Minor), this case not mentioned in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Bostock) case opinion, correction welcome.
Hypothetically speaking, and noting that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect politically correct LGBT “rights,” the 19th century Supreme Court did not suggest that Virginia Minor claim to be a man in order to benefit from the state voting rights that men had, but decided the case against her.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So regardless of the Supreme Court's special interest-favoring interpretation of the EPC in the context of today's politically correct, Democratic vote-winning civil rights laws, the Court had previously indicated that the EPC did not allow people to claim anything other than their biological sex at birth.
In fact, when the states ratified the 19th Amendment (19A) in response to the Court's decision in Minor, they effectively made recognizing only biological birth male and female sexes a part of the Constitution imo.
"19th Amendment:The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
In other words, we've just witnessed another Supreme Court scandal with the Court's decision in Bostock.
After all, by focusing everybody's attention on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA '64) and its titles without any reference to the Constitution and its history, liberal justices are once again getting away with giving ordinary voters the slight-of-hand by effectively putting a constitutionally indefensible law (imo) on the same pedestal with the Constitution.
Justices need to be required to first make sure that a federal law is reasonably justifiable under one the express powers that the states have given to the feds whenever the Court examines a case dealing with federal laws.
Regarding federal laws civil rights laws, the only express powers that the states have given to Congress to police INTRAstate race and sex discrimination are the 15th, and previously shown 19th Amendments, which limit Congress's constitutionally express civil rights policing powers only to voting rights-related problems imo.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Patriots have the golden opportunity to elect a new patriot Congress that will not only need to promise to fully support PDJT's already excellent work for MAGA, but will also promise to impeach and remove liberal justices, including stealth liberal (imo) Justice Gorsuch, from the bench.
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.