To: chief lee runamok
Relax everyone. This ruling was made because the Supreme Court didn't want to interfere with a case that is currently working its way through the court system. It is not a blanket ruling that legitimizes trans athletes. The Supreme Court will likely take that up once the case has been adjudicated by lower courts.
To: rexthecat
Stop injecting logic into this emotional argument. People want to be angry and they will not be denied! Let them read only the headline and think the world is falling apart!!! Don’t you know how the media works?!?!
To: rexthecat
In the meantime girls are deprived of their rights.
33 posted on
04/06/2023 12:34:52 PM PDT by
TheDon
(Resist the usurpers! Remember the J6 political prisoners!)
To: rexthecat
> This ruling was made because the Supreme Court didn’t want to interfere with a case that is currently working its way through the court system. <
I see your point. But this ruling is denying real females the right to fair competition.
Would the Supreme Court be so hands-off if, say, some black athlete was being denied the right to fair competition? I don’t think so.
40 posted on
04/06/2023 12:38:29 PM PDT by
Leaning Right
(The steal is real.)
To: rexthecat
Relax everyone. This ruling was made because the Supreme Court didn't want to interfere with a case that is currently working its way through the court system. It is not a blanket ruling that legitimizes trans athletes. The Supreme Court will likely take that up once the case has been adjudicated by lower courts.Exactly my thought. Not an emergency and not "ripe" for SCOTUS action. On the other hand, when he enters puberty, even with hormone blockers, and has to wear a jock strap, it would become an emergency as his presence in sports would overcome female performance.
47 posted on
04/06/2023 12:45:12 PM PDT by
CedarDave
(Pfizer's boosters: The medical equivalent of Russian roulette!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson