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)
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.
So, what happens if she gets sexually assaulted or raped when she keeps entering the men’s restroom and finds the wrong man there? I’m thinking if she runs into a bunch of those feral Muslim “refugees”, she won’t fare very well.
This judge has an address. Just sayin’.
L
With all due respect to the judges who made this decision, where did these post-FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-LGBT activist federal judges go to law school? (I don’t really want to know.)
There are two major constitutional problems with the court’s decision imo.
First, the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect relates only to voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, the states expressly giving the feds the specific power to legislatively strengthen that right.
That being said, since this PC transgender issue is clearly outside the scope of voting rights, low-information federal judges are evidently once again unconstitutionally sticking their noses into 10th Amendment-protected state issues.
The other major constitutional oversight with the court’s decision is this. The states have also never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spending for INTRAstate schooling purposes.
In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified, in broad terms, that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, intrastate schooling issues not listed among those powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the states evidently do not understand that the federal funding that they are under the threat of losing because their schools are not complying with unconstitutional federal discrimination regulations is argably state revenues that the corrupt feds have stolen from the states with unconstitutional federal taxes.
And it’s no surprise that the misguided, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratificaton Senate unthinkingly helped to pass Title IX. 17A needs to be repealed.
“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.”
AFAIK, the U.S. Education Department’s interpretation of a rule is not the same as established law passed by congress. Congress needs to very quickly rein in the department and limit the actions they may take under Title IX. Making sure that “sex” is defined to only mean biological sex would be a good start.
PATHETIC!!!!!!
This country had the right idea not suffering perverts of all stripes.
Saves having idiotic discussions and legal wastes of court time, about this stupid crap and the ramifications of such moronic policies.
Call Joe the Plumber.