Virginia school board takes transgender bathroom case to Supreme Court

[Rotobeast]

(08-11-2016, 01:14 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Have your cake and eat it, too. You eat the cake, you no longer have it.

You can't eat the cake if you want the cake.

You can't have both, you can't have the cake if you eat it.

Well.... digestion takes a while, so you'll still "have" it for that long.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

On a related note: A saying for the longest time that made no sense to me was "Waste not, want not". Used to think think meant if you didn't waste it, you didn't want it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So even though SCOTUS said a lower court was wrong by saying a child can use whichever bathroom it wants until/if they rule on it. The President can block funds to schools that do?

Seems for lack of a better term "Above the Law". I'm not sure SCOTUS would let it stand; they've had to reel him in in the past. 

Again, they didn't rule on the constitutionality of anything nor did they declare the court order "wrong". They temporarily blocked a specific court order that allowed a specific boy to use the boys bathroom, not locker rooms, at his specific school. Since they haven't made a decision on how Title IX is interpreted, the DOJ and DOE's current interpretation of it can still stand. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 04:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, they didn't rule on the constitutionality of anything nor did they declare the court order "wrong". They temporarily blocked a specific court order that allowed a specific boy to use the boys bathroom, not locker rooms, at his specific school. Since they haven't made a decision on how Title IX is interpreted, the DOJ and DOE's current interpretation of it can still stand. 

Why didn't the lower court's interpretation stand? Are you suggesting that the DOJ can interpret the law? 

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why didn't the lower court's interpretation stand? 

https://localtvwtkr.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gg.pdf

According to SCOTUS, they put a stay on the court order so that they could decide whether or not to hear the case. If they choose to not hear the case, SCOTUS said that the lower court's ruling stands. 

That doesn't really tell us why they choose to, but Breyer gives some more clues in his concurring opinion when he states that he joined the 4 to form a 5-3 majority as a "courtesy" to his colleagues as they are currently in recess. He states it is a means of "preserving the status quo prior" prior to the lower court's ruling until SCOTUS decides to hear it, if they do. 

Quote:Are you suggesting that the DOJ can interpret the law? 

Why, yes, the executive branch must interpret laws passed by the legislative branch if they are to execute them. Whether or not their interpretation is constitutional can then be determined by the official interpretation of the judicial branch. 

That's how government works. Likewise, the legislative branch has their own interpretation of the laws that they create that may or may not be reflected in how it is executed or how it is interpreted by the judicial branch. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 04:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://localtvwtkr.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gg.pdf

According to SCOTUS, they put a stay on the court order so that they could decide whether or not to hear the case. If they choose to not hear the case, SCOTUS said that the lower court's ruling stands. 

That doesn't really tell us why they choose to, but Breyer gives some more clues in his concurring opinion when he states that he joined the 4 to form a 5-3 majority as a "courtesy" to his colleagues as they are currently in recess. He states it is a means of "preserving the status quo prior" prior to the lower court's ruling until SCOTUS decides to hear it, if they do. 



Why, yes, the executive branch must interpret laws passed by the legislative branch if they are to execute them. Whether or not their interpretation is constitutional can then be determined by the official interpretation of the judicial branch. 

That's how government works. Likewise, the legislative branch has their own interpretation of what the laws that they create that may or may not be reflected in how it is executed or how it is interpreted by the judicial branch. 

Okey Dokey. We'll just disagree with the logic that DOJ can enforce a Federal Standard that SCOTUS told a lower court that they could not. 

I suppose we also disagree with the role of the DOJ.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey. We'll just disagree with the logic that DOJ can enforce a Federal Standard that SCOTUS told a lower court that they could not. 

I suppose we also disagree with the role of the DOJ.

I'd explain to you again what SCOTUS actually did, but I am going to assume you will again misrepresent their actions, especially since I even posted the actual document for you to read this last time. 

You can lead a horse to water...

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 05:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd explain to you again what SCOTUS actually did, but I am going to assume you will again misrepresent their actions, especially since I even posted the actual document for you to read this last time. 

You can lead a horse to water...

I know full well what SCOTUS did. They told a lower court that they could not force a school to students use the facility of their choice until/if they ruled and the school has the right to tell them to pound salt. They could have just as easily allowed the lower courts ruling to stand until they rule/ 

I suppose DOJ can do the same thing and SCOTUS will have to tell them the same thing when a school says pound salt. Or they could just wait until SCOTUS rules and let them determine the Constitutionality. As I've said SCOTUS telling this POTUS he has overstepped his bounds is nothing new. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2016, 05:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know full well what SCOTUS did. They told a lower court that they could not force a school to students use the facility of their choice until/if they ruled and the school has the right to tell them to pound salt. They could have just as easily allowed the lower courts ruling to stand until they rule/ 

I suppose DOJ can do the same thing and SCOTUS will have to tell them the same thing when a school says pound salt. Or they could just wait until SCOTUS rules and let them determine the Constitutionality. As I've said SCOTUS telling this POTUS he has overstepped his bounds is nothing new. 

The difference in these situations is that the stay on what the lower court said was because the court said the school had to comply to be within the law. In the case of the DoJ/DoE application/interpretation of Title IX it is not forcing schools to comply, it is saying to be eligible for federal funding from the DoE budget they have to follow those guidelines. It is, in essence, forcing the schools because taking away federal funding could be devastating. But because they could still not comply and be following the law it is not technically forcing them into anything.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-11-2016, 01:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then you will no longer have your cake

I've come to terms with that, and I'm OK with it

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 05:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The difference in these situations is that the stay on what the lower court said was because the court said the school had to comply to be within the law. In the case of the DoJ/DoE application/interpretation of Title IX it is not forcing schools to comply, it is saying to be eligible for federal funding from the DoE budget they have to follow those guidelines. It is, in essence, forcing the schools because taking away federal funding could be devastating. But because they could still not comply and be following the law it is not technically forcing them into anything.

SCOTUS told the lower court that they could not force the school to let kids use whichever bathroom they wanted until SCOTUS got more information and then determined if they would rule on it. I guess we will see what happens when the DOJ holds federal funds from schools before a ruling.

Some may be happy with the Executive Branch interpreting laws and holding public schools hostage; I am not. IMO the highest court in the Nation said we are not ready to make this call because we need more information; yet the Executive Branch is.     

If we remove all the smoke and (aka not exactly the same) The Executive Branch in going to impose a punishment on schools for something the SCOTUS said could not be done yet. It appears DOE has used the ruling by the Court of Appeals are grounds to impose their will. Now that case has been stayed; it only makes sense to me that the DOE mandate be stayed.   

[*bfine32*]

There's a small chance common sense might win this one

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-temporarily-blocks-obamas-transgender-directive-133042969.html

Quote:A federal judge in Texas has blocked the Obama administration's order that requires public schools to let transgender students use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their chosen gender identity.

In a temporary injunction signed Sunday, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the federal education law known as Title IX "is not ambiguous" about sex being defined as "the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth."

[GMDino]

(08-23-2016, 12:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a small chance common sense might win this one

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-temporarily-blocks-obamas-transgender-directive-133042969.html

"texas" and "common sense" rarely end up in the same sentence or means what you think it means.  

[*bfine32*]

This liberal gets it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/be819b11-aeae-3b4b-bd8d-17528d1910ae/ss_transgender-ruling-and.html

Quote:For me as a liberal, this presidential election campaign has been one, long nightmare. I have visions of a President Donald Trump ripping up the U.S. Constitution, instituting a religious test for prospective immigrants and tinkering with the libel laws, enabling him to sue unfriendly reporters. .... But the present occupant of the White House has sometimes played fast and loose with the rule of law, thinking himself on the side of the angels. I am indebted to a Texas judge for prying that realization out of my unconscious ...

President Barack Obama explained the bathroom mandate as an extension of civil rights to sexual minorities. His attorney general, Loretta Lynch, told a transgender group: "History is on your side."

That may well be. A court could find that the mandate is perfectly kosher. Even so, Judge O'Connor's order shows that the Obama administration took a shortcut to the future — one that is deeply troubling....

The administration based its transgender mandate on a piece of congressional legislation known as Title IX. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by educational institutions receiving federal funding. When it was enacted in 1972, "sex" and "gender" were synonyms. Since then, "gender" has taken on a secondary meaning of an individual's perception of being male or female.

In defending its bathroom mandate, the administration argues that what Title IX called "sex" also encompasses what is now known as "gender." So new legislation wasn't needed to give transgender students a choice of toilet facilities, locker rooms and showers. They were just "interpreting" Title IX, the feds say.

[xxlt]

Maybe off topic, but I walked into a business the other day and needed assistance. I walked up to a desk and said, "Sir, I need some help." I was not corrected but got a really funny look from the other person. Hair style, facial features, clothing style, everything about this person looked like a man to me. But, I noticed the weird look I got when I said, "Sir." I thought, oh wow, maybe this is a woman and I hurt her feelings? When the individual later stood up and escorted me to another area I noticed what appeared to be breasts that were not visible when he/she was seated at the desk and thought, maybe indeed I had chosen the wrong form of address and that explained the weird look I got. Judging by gait though, I still would have thought this a man. I really didn't care if I was wrong or right in my address to him/her, but I was afraid I had hurt his/her feelings from the strange look I got. I didn't want to make it any more awkward or apologize or correct myself because I still wasn't sure if it was a man or a woman and I felt bad enough about whatever prompted the strange look I got initially. Maybe it was an individual transitioning? I've always been a "Ma'am and sir" person - some people don't like it and think it too formal, but I think it is polite. But I may need to try to get out of the habit of saying ma'am and sir just so I don't have awkward moments like this.

SNL had a recurring character in skits called, 'It's Pat" years ago, and that was the joke - that nobody could ever figure out if Pat was male or female no matter what tricks they tried. And the real object of the humor was not ambiguous Pat but the discomfort of everyone else with the ambiguity. I wonder if those bits aired today if most people would still find them funny/fair game or if SNL would get a bunch of flak.

[xxlt]

(08-11-2016, 01:14 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Have your cake and eat it, too. You eat the cake, you no longer have it.

You can't eat the cake if you want the cake.

You can't have both, you can't have the cake if you eat it.

Richmond has a saying: If I eat it, I own it! So he can in fact eat his cake and still have it.

He says to the cake, "Get in my belly!" The cake does - he has eaten it and has it in his belly.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2016, 09:37 AM)xxlt Wrote: Maybe off topic, but I walked into a business the other day and needed assistance. I walked up to a desk and said, "Sir, I need some help." I was not corrected but got a really funny look from the other person. Hair style, facial features, clothing style, everything about this person looked like a man to me. But, I noticed the weird look I got when I said, "Sir."  I thought, oh wow, maybe this is a woman and I hurt her feelings? When the individual later stood up and escorted me to another area I noticed what appeared to be breasts that were not visible when he/she was seated at the desk and thought, maybe indeed I had chosen the wrong form of address and that explained the weird look I got. Judging by gait though, I still would have thought this a man. I really didn't care if I was wrong or right in my address to him/her, but I was afraid I had hurt his/her feelings from the strange look I got. I didn't want to make it any more awkward or apologize or correct myself because I still wasn't sure if it was a man or a woman and I felt bad enough about whatever prompted the strange look I got initially. Maybe it was an individual transitioning? I've always been a "Ma'am and sir" person - some people don't like it and think it too formal, but I think it is polite. But I may need to try to get out of the habit of saying ma'am and sir just so I don't have awkward moments like this.

SNL had a recurring character in skits called, 'It's Pat" years ago, and that was the joke - that nobody could ever figure out if Pat was male or female no matter what tricks they tried. And the real object of the humor was not ambiguous Pat but the discomfort of everyone else with the ambiguity. I wonder if those bits aired today if most people would still find them funny/fair game or if SNL would get a bunch of flak.

I'm a "sir" and "ma'am" person also, even to people younger than me (especially on the phone).  But (and not out PC because I've done this my whole life) I always start a request for help like your did with "Excuse me".  Which is weird because as I say I usually say sir or ma'am in evry other circumstance where I don't know the person personally.

Now if I am tell the story to someone else...if the helper was male he will be "the kid" and if she was female she will the "the girl".  Verbal tic I've picked up over the years.  The lady helping could be 80 and I'll say "so the girl running the counter...".  I've been told my grandfather did the same though I don't remember it.