Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/05/2026 3:05:01 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
A majority of the Supreme Court is finally losing patience with lower courts it perceives as looking for ways around both long-established and recent precedents, tacitly answering complaints by more conservative justices that the high court was routinely ignoring rulings that flagrantly violate its precedents.
In an emergency order Tuesday night, six justices rebuked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking a permanent injunction against California's so-called gender secrecy policies, which require school districts to hide students' gender confusion from their parents and even falsely tell parents their children aren't presenting as the opposite sex at school......
It was the 9th Circuit that rushed to judgment by blocking the permanent injunction early in California's appeal, and the high court recognized "the risk of irreparable harm to the parents" from that decision, the concurrence says.
"Under California's policy, parents will be excluded – perhaps for years – from participating in consequential decisions about their child's mental health and wellbeing" if the state gets to keep forcing schools to mislead parents through the appeals process, Barrett wrote. She emphasized Benitez only imposed the permanent injunction "after a full merits process."
Responding to Kagan's criticism that the unsigned opinion would be understood as the high court's final judgment against California's policies while the case continues on appeal, Barrett said SCOTUS needed to issue "general course correction" because the 9th Circuit "significantly misunderstood" Mahmoud.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only member to conclusively reject the plaintiffs' petition, rather than just fault the majority's perceived procedural violations. Justice Neil Gorsuch was the only majority member to add no comment of his own.
"The Court's majority delivered a clear message: Schools can't play therapist or activist without parental consent," the conservative Heritage Foundation said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
There are to many rotten judges selected by Democrats solely for their partisan loyalty regardless of law or precedent. Congress does not have the will to dissolve these lower courts. An Article V Convention Of States, however, could get that job done
This really is...”for the children”. And if two parents are fighting over making their child into a tranny...the parent that says...”no way”...wins.
“Just yesterday my 6th grader was trying to get me to send her to public school, I told her I can’t trust them.”
Don’t buckle! It’s a one-way trip to hell if she ends up in that kind of institution.
The Supreme Court needs to go after 98% of the “lower court” Feral ashos and fire all of their worthless, commie butts. They all are America-hating sickos who work only for the enemies of America and foreign freeloading maggots.
It was a good day for the court all around.
Sue the schools for practicing medicine without a license.
We just bought a house in Redmond OR, but only after our grandkids found a safe sanctuary at Trinity Lutheran.
The hyper partisanship is deliberate, and it is facilitated by the Senate Blue Slip rule. Permitting leftist democrats to blunt nominations of originalist jurists into leftist districts enables the stratification. obama started it by partisanizing the DC district and bidet pumped in the steroids. The Blue Slip rule needs to die.
A convention of states would be a disaster. It would be controlled by squishies, rhinos and democrats.
Did you know some states tried to get a Convention called before the First Democrat-Republican War? It was too little , too late and after that awful war ended the Constitution got ratified anyways. The Democrat states were not allowed to rejoin the Union unless they agreed to the amendments. How about we skip that bloody fighting part this time around. The weapons we have now are a.lot worse than what they had back then.
Divide the voters into those who feel strongly “pro-family”, those who are strongly “pro-LGBTQ” ...
and those with a focus on other issues.
Historically the pro-family vote seldom shows up to vote. In 1994 they did show up and were the reason the Republicans took both the Senate and the House. The Senate did everything possible to discourage the pro-family vote. Since 1994 the pro-family vote does not turn out with the same strength that the other side does.
I suggest that in any referendum, the pro-family voters will have low turnout.
(In going door-to-door trying to get voters to come out and vote, repeatedly the pro-family voter told me “We’ll pray about it”. They did not show up to vote.
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.