Another Supreme Court decision

[tvc184]

This morning the Supreme Court issued another ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

WV was being sued by a biological male (B. P. J.) wanting to play on female teams. 

The question was, does Title IX of federal law on sex based discrimination, keep states from banning biological males from female sports. Title IX wasn’t originally for sports but at least that seems to be where the main impact and attention has been. The law says that in educational benefits from grade schools through college, sexes must have an equal access in educational programs. For example if a high school had 10 boys sports and only 2 girls sports, it was seen as not having equal access. It has obviously improved funding for girls sports in schools and in college and that’s a good thing. Look at some of the popularity of some female sports now. 

But this case was not about that.

West Virginia, Texas, Idaho and other states have passed laws banning biological males from female sports. Also the NCAA recently banned males from female sports.

Lawsuits were filed saying that banning males from female sports violated Title IX by discriminating against the males by denying them access to sports. So a West Virginia case made it to the Supreme Court to see if it was a constitutional violation of male rights by banning them from female sports. To me it seemed  like a simple answer. Men are not denied access to sports. They are only banned from joining female teams. So a male does not have to be allowed to join a female basketball team. He has equal access to sports and can join the men’s team.

It’s so simple, right?

Not so fast!!

The Supreme Court had to settle this decision. It was not unanimous. The vote was 6-3 that banning males from female sports was not discrimination against males.

This is like beating a dead horse…. 🫪

Can anyone guess which three justices voted that it is discrimination if a boy is denied playing on a girl’s team by claiming that he is a girl and he apparently has no access to sports? Is he denied educational (usually sports) access?

Here is a hint and this is a spoiler alert. One of the justices who voted that males should be able to play on female teams and it is guaranteed in federal law and the Constitution by way of Title IX, is not sure what a male or female is anyway.

 

[5GallonBucket]

Pretty sad and pathetic and probably demonic that people actually think that a male can be a female and vice versa.

this is what happens when people fall away from the Word of God….  It trickles into our leaders and governing officials.

[tvc184]

Also, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter.

Articles I, II and III in the Constitution list the separation of powers. Article II gives the president complete control over the Executive Branch of government.

 The FTC is under the authority of the Executive Branch. It is therefore controlled by one person, the president.

Trump came into office and fired two members of the FTC because they were appointed by Democrats and they did not agree with Trump‘s position. For that reason, Trump said, you’re fired!

One of them, Rebecca Slaughter did not like that. He filed a lawsuit saying that you can’t fire me. A 1935 lawsuit ruled on by the Supreme Court said that Congress funds and created the FTC so the president cannot fire anyone on a commission that he and only he is ahead of. So basically, he cannot fire his own employee even though the his employee said, I don’t agree with your agenda, Mr. President.

So Trump took to court and the circuit court said, yes, Mr. President, you were prohibited from finding members of a commission that you and only you are ahead of. You are forced to work with people that do not want to work for you or for your agenda

Trump has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision said, what kind of nonsense is this. Sure, a president can fire a member of an executive commission that he alone controls. Who wants to work with a subordinate who can basically tell you to get screwed?

So just because Congress does not like it, under the separation of powers, they do not control executive committees and commissions. Congress can create committees but once created, they are under the authority of the president and can be terminated.

Again, the vote was 6 to 3 that the president alone in Article II, controls the Executive Branch.

Any guesses on which 3 justices said to heck with Article II, the president should not be able to control all aspects of his administration? 

[baddog]

S was on Fox News but it wouldn’t let me copy/paste.

Google search:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently issued a strong dissent in Trump v. Barbara, in which the Court ruled 6-3 to uphold birthright citizenship and strike down the Trump administration's restrictions. Alito warned the decision would have "grotesque results", specifically encouraging "birth tourism" and presenting severe national security ramifications by extending citizenship to children of foreign adversaries. [

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

]

Alito also offered a sharp dissent regarding a 5-4 decision to uphold a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted post-Election Day. In that case, he warned the policy provides an invitation for "voter fraud" and could severely damage the trust Americans place in election integrity