Skip to comments.The Supreme Court Won't Protect This Girl's Privacy Rights Against Trans Activism. What Comes Next?
Posted on 05/30/2019 12:04:14 PM PDT by Hojczyk
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the important case Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, which centered on the question of whether or not students have the privacy right to sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms. Boys were shocked to find a girl changing with them and teenage girl Alexis Lightcap was terrified to a find a boy in her restroom. These violations of privacy were justified in the name of transgender inclusion. While the Supreme Court did not take up Lightcap's case, it may consider similar ones coming down the pike.
"Students struggling with their beliefs about gender need compassionate support, but sound reasons based on common sense have always existed for schools to separate male and female teenagers in showers, restrooms, and locker rooms," John Bursch, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the firm representing Lightcap, said in a statement. "No students recognized right to bodily privacy should be made contingent on what other students believe about their own gender."
The Boyertown Area School District secretly implemented the pro-transgender policy during the 2016-2017 school year. Boys discovered a girl changing in their locker room. Embarrassed and confused, they sought help from school officials, who told them they should just "tolerate it" and "make it as natural as possible." One of the male students left the school as a result of the policy. Lightcap encountered a boy in her restroom. Shocked and afraid, she fled the restroom, but school officials rejected her privacy concerns.
The lawsuit, Doe v. Boyertown, argues the school is violating its students' fundamental right to bodily privacy under the Constitution and effectively denying them access to locker room and restroom facilities on the basis of sex under Title IX.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the school,
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Where the hell are the fathers of these girls..they should be at every school board meeting raising hell..
It’s not under SCOTUS’ purview, it’s a states decision.
If a prevert state decides to allow it, either change the members of the legislature and Governor or live with it.
What’s next? Parents should show up with pitchforks and torches.
That sounds good. However, many times states pass laws, and then Federal courts block them.
100 wrongs still don’t make a right.
If a normal man walks into a womens’ bathroom, he will be arrested. If a man who claims to be a woman, but has a hose by which he pees, he’s protected, worshiped, and set free.
The more liberals control things, the more things become insane.
Would having three restrooms solve the problem?
One for Men.
One for Women.
One for Other.
...teenage girl Alexis Lightcap...
Who will be subject to lifelong harassment, assuming that it hasn't already begun.
I am 72 and I need a fourth bathroom, for frequent guests.
“Would having three restrooms solve the problem?
One for Men.
One for Women.
One for Other.”
A local vegan restaurant has Men, Women, and ?.
Only if normal people get to use the "other". Male trannies will insist on using the "men", and female trannies will use "women".
> What’s next?
The end of the age.
I just read that at least 4 of the 9 Justices have to agree to hear the case. I’d like to know how the votes in this case were broken down...who voted to hear it, and who didn’t.
When the Court decides not to hear a case, there is usually just an unsigned Order saying that "The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is denied," with no indication of who voted which way. Occasionally a Justice will write a dissent from the Court's refusal to hear a case (as Justice Thomas did this week in the Indiana abortion case), or will simply write "Justice X would have granted the Petition."
In this case, there were no recorded dissents. That doesn't necessarily mean that no Justice wanted to hear the case, but at least no Justice felt strongly enough about it to record a dissent.
Evidenced by school district allegedly ignoring citizen voters, remaining Supreme Court swamp justices likewise seem to be ignoring that school district may be violating constitutional guarantee of republican form of government for each state.
"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."
While I dont know details, school district may also be violating Section 1 of 14th Amendment where abridgment of basic constitutional rights is concerned, possibly 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech in this example.
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."
"Shocked and afraid, she fled the restroom, but school officials rejected her privacy concerns [emphasis added]."
If women can argue politically correct body privacy to justify murder of their unborn children, why cant referenced young woman likewise argue body privacy?
But also consider that the real problem here is regardless that feds have express constitutional authority to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, were still stuck with a useless Congress that has a track record for ignoring abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections by state actors.
The remedy for corrupt Congress
Patriots in the whole nation need to come to the rescue of oppressed Pennsylvania patriots by electing a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJTs vision for MAGA, but will also promise to exercise its powers to make punitive laws to discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
Remember in November!
MAGA! Not Democratic MADA (Make America Dead Again).
If adults want it in adult spaces they can fight for that, but when it comes to kids & teens.....no. I don’t see any positives for young people.
Did the whole transgender thing bloom overnight? I am finding it difficult to believe there are so many now.
I guess the Supremes want to wait for someone to get raped or killed because of this crap before they deign to intervene.
“Its not under SCOTUS purview, its a states decision.”
Sorry, but as long the SCOTUS wants to pretend there is a magical “right to privacy” hidden somewhere in the Constitution, then we can certainly appeal to the SCOTUS to enforce this mythical right just like any of the other Constitutional protections that we enjoy.
If a “right to privacy” doesn’t cover me when I’m doing my most private business, then I’d like the Supreme Court to go on the record and put that opinion in writing to really memorialize their hypocrisy.
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.