Posted on 04/19/2016 5:57:30 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
A federal appeals court in Richmond has ruled that a transgender high school student who was born as a female can sue his school board on discrimination grounds because it banned him from the boys’ bathroom.
In backing high school junior Gavin Grimm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deferred to the U.S. Education Department’s position that transgender students should have access to the bathrooms that match their gender identities rather than being forced to use bathrooms that match their biological sex. The department has said that requiring transgender students to use a bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex amounts to a violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination at schools that receive federal funding.
“It’s a complete vindication for the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX,” said Joshua Block, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents Grimm.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Freak show culture. Pray for America.
Using the bathroom of their biological sex causes reality to intrude on their delusion.
Our responsibility as good citizens is to enable their delusion. (Big Sarc)
When you not just tolerate immorality but make it the law of te land, eventually people just start beating the crap out of te freaks. Just sayin.
Seven years of Obama, and now we can’t tell which bathroom we should use.
just build them transgender outhouses
My dream is a Congress with the balls to impeach every one of these sick twisted perverts masquerading as judges.
Can we please get back to reality!
Search in vain for anything in Title IX that protects homosexuals or transsexuals.
The State should tell the “Inferior” court to GO POUND SAND,
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
I can’t believe this is the same country I was born in. Actually, it isn’t.
So, what the court is saying that women have no right to privacy.
Women of America - rise up and fight for your right to privacy.
Just put a “Vagina Free Zone” on the Mens Room Door and a “Penis Free Zone” on the Womens Room Door.
It’s works for all those Gun Free Zone Signs, right?
They are setting up that GIRL to get her A$$ kicked and worse if she saunters into the Boys Restroom and the wrong Guys happen to be in there.
I’m also thinking that the Washington Post might be preventing people from commenting on the story. I can’t get the comments to load on this story but can on another, and the number of comments, 2496, hasn’t changed for me since I accessed the story. Anyone able to get their comments to load?
“Freak show culture”
Where does Trump stand on this issue?
You knew that they would.
Dream on.
Hmmmm....I may get print some labels and surreptitiously use them....
Stop worrying. It is not he same Country that you were born in.
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.