Posted on 09/30/2019 6:23:49 AM PDT by bgill
The Supreme Court will hear Stephens’ case Oct. 8 over whether federal civil rights law that bars job discrimination on the basis of sex protects transgender people. Other arguments that day deal with whether the same law covers sexual orientation.
The cases are the first involving LGBT rights since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s gay-rights champion and decisive vote on those issues...
On the other side of the case is the R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, whose owner worries that a ruling for Stephens also would prohibit sex-specific sleeping facilities in shelters, as well as showers, restrooms and locker rooms. Congress can change the law to make explicit protections for LGBT people if it wishes, owner Thomas Rost says in court papers...
Trump’s election and his rollback of Obama administration policies allowing transgender people to use school bathrooms corresponding to their identity, and to serve openly in the military are major reasons why Stephens has persisted in her fight, even as her health struggles have mounted.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxan.com ...
I’m thinking he looked better in men’s clothing.
Blackface Virginia governor looked happy too being something different than what ge was
“...The 2 percent...”
__________
You DRAMATICALLY overestimate their numbers.
I would not be surprised if the court rules that the mentally ill have a perfect right to upstage the grief of families who have lost loved ones . . . and to destroy the businesses of people unfortunate enough to have put them on the payroll.
“...are major reasons why Stephens has persisted in her fight, even as her health struggles have mounted.”
So, mental health issues, or does this dude have HIV?
A little sodium pentothal and that 'answer' changes 180°
/.02
We can only hope this goes down in flames. For the court to even court such a philosophy doesn’t speak well of the court. Which leaves me wondering. I guess this must be a lower court decision that leave the Supreme’s no option but to address. That said, the SCOTUS should have an option if that is the case. This potential decision has earth shaking impact if it goes the wrong way.
Less than one percent!!! If you added up the total of all the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ groups and there are a plethora of them with flags of identity. They are loud, proud, obnoxious, and dangerous to individual rights enumerated and otherwise and that is exactly how far this should be allowed to progress and not one skinny millimeter beyond.
The supreme court cannot force us to accept the anti-science transgender nonsense. It is not someone’s civil right to force me to deny reality, and I won’t do it.
It is not someone’s civil right to force me to deny reality, and I won’t do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is essentially what they want.
The court has already forced us to accept a new definition of marriage.
It was one thing for the court to in-define marriage in 2015. That had the air of private bedroom stuff. But exposing every employer in the country to litigation by the insane is a whole different ball game.
Bearing in mind that Democrats ultimately win elections by means of judicial tyranny, please consider the following analysis of major constitutional problems (imo) with the post-17th Amendment ratification judiciary.
The Supreme Court’s first step in deciding any case dealing with federal laws should be to check if the law is reasonably based on an express delegation of power in the Constitution imo. If no clause is found to reasonably justify the law then it is probably unconstitutional.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Most of Congress’s express delegations of power are found in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, but also including the four voting rights amendments for example. And in the case of this politically correct “transgender woman," one of the voting rights amendments could have been used to resolve this case early in the process imo.
Regarding Congress’s express powers to make sex-related protection laws, the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, that amendment expressly giving Congress the specific power to make laws protecting the right, is limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A).
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
Note that 19A was ratified in response to the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, that case defining sex strictly on the basis of biological male and female sexes. The politically correct claim to be the opposite sex of what you were born was unheard of.
The question is, why did this transgender case make it all the way to the Supreme Court when Constitution-savvy grade-school students arguably could have decided this issue? (Hint, institutionally indoctrinated judges imo.)
In fact, much of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its associated titles probably need to be thrown out, Democrats likely making these constitutionally indefensible rights to exploit low-information voters, winning their votes to stay in power.
Also consider that a major constitutional problem with activist judges playing games with politically correct issues, LGBT “rights” in this case, is that, considering other cases that need to be heard, how can the judiciary avoid violating the Constitution’s 5th Amendment right to a speedy trial if activist judges are taking the time to indoctrinate the country with politically correct LGBT “rights?”
The remedy for a corrupt judiciary…
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do this.
New lawmakers also need to promise to support PDJT in continuing to clean up the judiciary.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Laura Ingraham: “Make America Greater!”
“sex” already means something, and this case is pretty open-and-shut.
We used to think the same thing about marriage between a man and a woman, and in today’s world I wonder how many words we could stick in that sentence to replace “sex” that already means something, and that is an open and shut case in recent history. And yet today, it seems courts have a way of turning open and shut on it’s head.
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.