Posted on 06/28/2021 8:03:06 AM PDT by Enterprise
Only Thomas and Alito wanted to hear the case.
“Unreal”
Yes, in my mind also. Public bathrooms have stalls where anyone can go and not reveal their full anatomy, so what’s the problem?
Only Thomas and Alito wanted to hear the case.
Thanks.
Sad and sickening times we’re witnessing.
Very telling “no comment”.
Cowards.
I wonder if PDJT will (rightly) blast GorKavBar, for this.
We’re no longer a republic.
SCOTUS has been compromised.
The law is whatever Deep State says it is until we restore our republic.
Two things have changed since the first time the case came before the justices. The Supreme Court ruled last year that a federal civil rights law bans employment discrimination on the basis of gender identify, and now the Biden administration has interpreted that ruling as applying to Title IX as well.
Very infrequently will that ever be made public. Only in the exceedingly rare circumstances, will dissenters offer a public comment on the failure to grant cert.
Just last month, Sotomayor issued a statement on such a denial..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051721zor_6537.pdf
...you can see that the Court refused cert in a litany of cases, all without comment. I can’t remember the last time a Justice has issued a statement like Sotomayor’s, but I don’t watch the Court religiously. So, maybe it happens once or twice a term. Even in that case, we don’t know what the vote was, only that Sotomayor was in the minority.
There is no “transition”, biology is biology.
There is mutilation of the body and medically assisted pretense to APPEAR to be the sex that the person is factually not. It is all done in order to give in to an errant mental obsession much as if to an addict the “cure” was to be sure they had access to what they were addicted to; then they don’t have to fight the addiction or the obsession - just give in to it, because that is easier, less emotionally difficult, less “stressful”, so they think.
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Grimm, told the court that treating him differently by requiring him to use separate single-stall bathrooms singled him out “and stigmatized him as unfit to use the same restroom as his peers.”
Remember back in 2005 when sodomy was a crime, not a human right? Remember how they assured us that nothing would change, but people would be more free? Anyone who said that was either a liar or an outright moron.
Agree. I’m so not dying to hear Gorsuch’s and Kavanaugh’s opinion on this. Nothing good will come from the Roberts court taking this type of case.
Scalia, Alito and Thomas all had/have impressive CVs and diplomas from the finest law schools in the country and they’re shining examples of reliably conservative jurists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even these shining examples of reliably conservative jurists sat by silently as the Constitution was violated by swearing in a British subject/Kenyan/Indonesian.
Well, it could be worse. We could be getting a pro tranny freak Gorsuch “originalist” opinion being rubbed into our faces. This is probably the best outcome we could expect from the Quisling SCOTUS.
It’s probably just as well. Given their moral cowardice, SCOTUS would probably rule that a girl actually becomes a boy is she feels like it.
Isn’t this essentially what they have just done?
The case won’t be heard. Certiorari has been denied.
Someone else will have to bring a new case in the courts. People who aren’t involved in the case can’t bring a case in court.
Think about it this way. Let’s say that Sam chops down a tree on his lawn and it partially blocks Adam’s driveway. Adam can bring that case into court, but you can’t. You don’t have a concrete interest in the outcome of the case, even if you are deeply offended by Sam’s actions towards Adam.
That’s standing. Adam has it. You don’t.
Let’s say that Adam brings a case in the lower courts and loses. Adam has standing and he brought his case, he just lost. Let’s say that Adam appeals to SCOTUS (unlikely there would be jurisdiction in a property dispute, but I digress) and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case. That refusal is simply a denial of certiorari. It isn’t a decision at all. That ends the case.
Trump went 0 for 3. It’s hard to think anybody on the list he picked from was better given that.
I’m confused about the end result, does he get to use the bathroom of his choice or does he have to use the one based on his birth biology? Do schools and all have to let boys use the girls room?
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.