Judge Upholds Ban on Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Policy
Stop with the federal overreach.
In May, Texas and 12 other states filed suit against the Obama administration when it issued a transgendered bathroom policy across the nation in public schools. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor put a freeze on the policy in August when he found the “administration did not follow proper procedures for notice and comment in issuing the guidelines.”
Well, today, Judge O’Connor rejected the “administration’s request to narrow a nationwide injunction banning enforcement” of the policy.” He made a few changes to his original ruling, but now the Department of Education cannot “bring new cases enforcing transgender students’ access” to these “intimate facilities.”
“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide,” O’Connor wrote. “Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.'”
The ruling only affects those states “that don’t require gender separation by law or policy,” but only to those “that apply such rules themselves.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appreciates the judge’s order:
“The court’s reaffirmation of a nationwide injunction should send a clear message to the president that Texas won’t sit idly by as he continues to ignore the Constitution. The president cannot rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people and then threaten to take away funding from schools to force them to fall in line,” Paxton said in a statement.
The administration has already planned to appeal the decision to the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the White House refused to comment on the order and the Education Department referred questions to the Justice Department.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The court’s reaffirmation of a nationwide injunction should send a clear message to the president that Texas won’t sit idly by as he continues to ignore the Constitution.”
I think I would have said…”Texas won’t STAND idly by…”, but that could be quibbling. If you get my drift…
OT
is the video of day a playlist or feed others can access or is this just something webmasters here update manually daily?
“Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.’”
Holy Triumvirate! Is he going to get away with this reasoning?
While it’s tempting to see anything which limits the extent of Obamesque madness as, ipso facto, good, this blatant and unsupportable power grab is grotesque.
The judge’s rationale for blowing off geographical constraints on his decision is that, without such constraints, it will be more “effective”. Well, yes, that is the nature of constraints. The Constitution itself is four and a half thousand words’ worth of constraints. They’re not to be ignored just because someone finds them … well, constraining. That’s the whole idea of a government of limited and enumerated powers.
Take it up with SCOTUS due to precedent application of Title IX and Title VII. see Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (regarding injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs).
see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, §1), aff’d by equally divided Supreme Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (June 23, 2016) (FYI – this was the immigration plan injunction).
If Hillary wins this ruling will be struck down in a 5-4 decision because liberals don’t care about the law or the Constitution.
Which is one of the reason Obama isn’t even bothering to comment on it. The fix is in.
Read Obama’s threatening bathroom policy letter here: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf
There is a huge difference between transgender and gender identity.
“Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender. A person’s gender identity may be different from or the same as the person’s sex assigned at birth.
Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation recorded on an infant’s birth certificate
should such a record be provided at birth.
Transgender describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth”
Gender identity is a moving target that can change hour to hour, day to day and “there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.”
It’s all about what you feel like doing and no one in authority at school may challenge it.
As a result of the letter, Maryland takes it to the extreme:
“Md. school district: Don’t tell parents if transgender males bunk with daughters”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/23/md-schools-dont-tell-parents-transgender-males/
This madness will end when the first full blooded biological boy, who can state he feels like a girl, attempts to pee next to a little Muslim girl. Heads will roll, literally.
And a federal magistrate judge ruled to the contrary just yesterday (Tuesday, Oct 18, 2016). (h/t Jazz Shaw in the Blogs I Read section in the right margin.)
When you are married to transvestite – and somehow find a nation stupid enough to elect you president – you go around urging such public bathroom policies.
Besides, there’s the romantic angle: that’s probably where they first met.
I agree 100%. Can’t wait for the real facts to surface once those two shitbags leave office.
where does this MADNESS end….I do not care what L A W
is passed or what E D I C T is handed down by our Pres.
nor what the court(s) R U L E…I am going to respect the
WORD of GOD as my LAW and let those who deny it continue
to argue and fight over what is right/wrong behavior….
not one jot nor one tittle will change…what HE said is
the FINALE WORD and none can gainsay it….