RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Trump withdraws protections on transgender bathrooms

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8466



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/17 8:54 pm    ::: Trump withdraws protections on transgender bathrooms Reply Reply with quote


Quote:
Washington (CNN)The Trump administration on Wednesday night withdrew Obama-era guidance on transgender bathroom use in public schools.

The announcement is a significant victory for opponents of the Obama administration's guidelines who believe the federal government should never have gotten involved in the issue. Civil rights groups, meanwhile, decried the move as an attack on transgender children that denies them equal rights.


Quote:
The letter -- which does not offer new guidance but simply withdraws the Obama administration policy -- says there must be "due regard" for the role of states and local school districts in shaping education policy in schools.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/doj-withdraws-federal-protections-on-transgender-bathrooms-in-schools/index.html



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17809



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/22/17 10:12 pm    ::: Re: Trump withdraws protections on transgender bathrooms Reply Reply with quote

because why not terrorize more people?



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8466



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 2:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RwrqLKxFS-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>

https://youtu.be/RwrqLKxFS-I



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 220
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 7:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why does something like this need federal oversight? Just more people that the producers in this country have to pay for. We don't need federal employees dictating our bathroom policies to us. Good riddance! More cuts need to happen like this.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 7:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Why does something like this need federal oversight? Just more people that the producers in this country have to pay for. We don't need federal employees dictating our bathroom policies to us. Good riddance! More cuts need to happen like this.

This line of thinking makes no sense. How does this require "more people" to pay for? This was just federal guidelines telling public schools how to handle this issue so to protect transgender children and teens. No additional people needed.

And bathroom bills showing up around the country suggest we do, indeed, need federal employees dictating said policy.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 220
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 8:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
This line of thinking makes no sense. How does this require "more people" to pay for? This was just federal guidelines telling public schools how to handle this issue so to protect transgender children and teens. No additional people needed.

Of course you would need to pay for federal employees. What happens when someone is in violation of said guidelines?

justintyme wrote:
And bathroom bills showing up around the country suggest we do, indeed, need federal employees dictating said policy.

We don't need federal employees dictating ANYTHING. This is not even a federal issue. Issues like this should be taken up with local and state representatives. We don't need a one-size-fits-all law imposed on everyone just because you agree with it. This is one of the many reasons the left's ideas are being rejected. The far left doesn't get to force their ideals on the people anymore.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
This line of thinking makes no sense. How does this require "more people" to pay for? This was just federal guidelines telling public schools how to handle this issue so to protect transgender children and teens. No additional people needed.

Of course you would need to pay for federal employees. What happens when someone is in violation of said guidelines?

justintyme wrote:
And bathroom bills showing up around the country suggest we do, indeed, need federal employees dictating said policy.

We don't need federal employees dictating ANYTHING. This is not even a federal issue. Issues like this should be taken up with local and state representatives. We don't need a one-size-fits-all law imposed on everyone just because you agree with it. This is one of the many reasons the left's ideas are being rejected. You don't get to force your ideals on the people anymore.

The same people who handle any violation of federal guidelines. It isn't like this is some major expansion.

And one of the federal government's jobs is to protect its citizens from discrimination. We have seen what state and local governments will do to groups like the transgendered in areas where they are not socially accepted.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 220
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 8:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
The same people who handle any violation of federal guidelines. It isn't like this is some major expansion.

And one of the federal government's jobs is to protect its citizens from discrimination. We have seen what state and local governments will do to groups like the transgendered in areas where they are not socially accepted.

1) We do not need federal guidelines on how to use the bathroom. That's not discrimination.
2) Those same people who handle those violations are not needed. When you have MORE rules, the workload involved in enforcing said rules always goes UP. That requires more manpower.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The same people who handle any violation of federal guidelines. It isn't like this is some major expansion.

And one of the federal government's jobs is to protect its citizens from discrimination. We have seen what state and local governments will do to groups like the transgendered in areas where they are not socially accepted.

1) We do not need federal guidelines on how to use the bathroom. That's not discrimination.
2) Those same people who handle those violations are not needed. When you have MORE rules, the workload involved in enforcing said rules always goes UP. That requires more manpower.

Why am I even responding to you? Go away, Troll.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 220
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/23/17 8:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The same people who handle any violation of federal guidelines. It isn't like this is some major expansion.

And one of the federal government's jobs is to protect its citizens from discrimination. We have seen what state and local governments will do to groups like the transgendered in areas where they are not socially accepted.

1) We do not need federal guidelines on how to use the bathroom. That's not discrimination.
2) Those same people who handle those violations are not needed. When you have MORE rules, the workload involved in enforcing said rules always goes UP. That requires more manpower.

Why am I even responding to you? Go away, Troll.

I was wondering the same thing. I'm laying out very reasonable arguments and you have yet to counter anything I point out with a legitimate retort. You're way out of your league buddy. Just run away.


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15194
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 2:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No, we shouldn't *have* to have guidelines about bathroom use. People *should* be decent enough to not care whether a trans person is in their bathroom. (because why are you even looking?!)

And yet so many people do. And from here I'll turn it over to Laverne Cox:

Quote:
COX: Well my friend Chase Strangio, who works at the ACLU, says this so brilliantly that these anti-trans bathroom bills are not really about bathrooms, it's about whether or not we believe trans people have a right to exist in public space. When trans people cannot access public bathrooms we can't go to schools effectively, go to work effectively, access healthcare facilities, it's about us existing in public space. And the folks who oppose trans people facilities that are consistent with how we identify, know all the things that they claim don't actually happen it's really about us not existing, about erasing trans people.


https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/02/23/msnbc-laverne-cox-explains-human-reality-trumps-rescinding-trans-inclusive-policies/215445



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 5:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There are two separate issues being discussed here.

The first is what the right answer should be on the issue of protecting transgender persons, and the answer to that obviously should be that of course the rights of transgender people to live and prosper without discrimination and hurdles should be protected.

But there is a separate issue of political philosophy and US Constitutional law of at what level should the form of those protections be determined. The principal of subsidiarity would say that such issues should be dealt with at the most local level that is consistent with their resolution. And in the United States, if you believe at all in the principles of federalism upon which our nation was founded and built, the resolution of these issues likely belongs at the state level. That these days we all too frequently ignore the limited role assigned to the Federal government by the Constitution doesn't mean that we should. And theoretically it should be easier, not harder, to organize and effect change and drive policy at a more local level where elected representatives are more directly responsible to their constituents than it is at the federal level.

In the absence of a right arising under the US Constitution, which I doubt exists in this specific instance, the narrow question of bathroom use is likely well beyond the proper purview of the central government. Broader questions of discrimination in employment, housing, education and the like have long been recognized as arising under the US Constitution, but who can use which bathroom probably extends far beyond any recognized Constitutional right and becomes a matter of policy rather than Constitutional law.

It becomes way too easy for both the left and the right to try to abuse the power of the federal government to force on the the states rules that really should be decided by each state. The right answer should be to organize at the state level, vote out of office the hatemongers in the legislatures of North Carolina and Texas and other states, and fix the problem at the state and local level. That's the way our system is supposed to work.

Saying that this should be addressed at the state level doesn't mean the answer should be different, but at least to me these issues of preserving the nature of our system of Government matter. And they matter even more today when we have a President with no respect for our Constitutional system. The solution to opposing Trump is not to join him in trashing the Constitution and abusing the power of the federal government.

Heck, the more we respect our federal system and leave decisions to states, the less there is for him to screw up.

BTW, I am not suggesting for a moment that Trump's motive in rescinding this rule was to preserve our federal system. It was plainly to free right wing states to pass anti-transgender legislation. But that doesn't change the answer to me. It just says, OK, now go win this at the state level where it belongs.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 5:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:


And bathroom bills showing up around the country suggest we do, indeed, need federal employees dictating said policy.


No it doesn't. It just says to go fight it at the state level.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 5:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
but who can use which bathroom probably extends far beyond any recognized Constitutional right and becomes a matter of policy rather than Constitutional law.


But couldn't we also make the same argument about which water fountain to use or where to sit in public transportation?

I agree with you that the most decisions should be made at the local level, at least when they have the capacity to do so. But when it comes to discrimination in the public sector, I would argue that the federal government has a responsibility to protect the minority against the animus of the local majority. We are talking about the ability to freely use public accommodations here, and that transgendered children in our public school system are not told by local ordinance or policy that they are not accepted as they are.

The problem with fighting this as the local level is that there are areas so full of animus, that see transgendered people as a mental illness not to be enabled, that in those locations transgendered people need protection from an outside source and no amount of "fighting" is going to change their mind.

Let's not pretend that if the federal government hadn't stepped in there wouldn't still be segregation in many places around the country. No matter how much we tried to fight it.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 6:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
but who can use which bathroom probably extends far beyond any recognized Constitutional right and becomes a matter of policy rather than Constitutional law.


But couldn't we also make the same argument about which water fountain to use or where to sit in public transportation?

I agree with you that the most decisions should be made at the local level, at least when they have the capacity to do so. But when it comes to discrimination in the public sector, I would argue that the federal government has a responsibility to protect the minority against the animus of the local majority. We are talking about the ability to freely use public accommodations here, and that transgendered children in our public school system are not told by local ordinance or policy that they are not accepted as they are.


Actually sex based discrimination is a far more complicated question than race discrimination. Intermediate scrutiny is applied to sex based discrimination. And it will remain far more complicated unless the Supreme Court ultimately determines that even having seperate men's and women's restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, universities, or anything else violates the Constitution. But that's not the law today. So having seperate black and white rest rooms is plainly illegal. Having seperate black and white school basketball teams is plainly illegal. Having seperate men's and women's is not. So as long as having and enforcing seperate restrooms is recognized as legal, then there remain policy questions of how "sex" is to be defined for purposes of enforcing that distinction. I am unaware of any currently recognized Constitutional principal that dictates that answer.

If the Constitution provides the answer, then go to federal court and get the North Carolina law struck down.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 6:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

BTW, I am not suggesting for a moment that Trump's motive in rescinding this rule was to preserve our federal system. It was plainly to free right wing states to pass anti-transgender legislation. But that doesn't change the answer to me. It just says, OK, now go win this at the state level where it belongs.

Honestly, if he were consistent about this I would respect his choice much more. This is a legitimate understanding of how government should work, and while I disagree with it, I can respect the logic and philosophy behind it.

But with Trump, and the GOP in general, almost all calls for "Letting the states decide" comes with some regressive policy. Trump argues that local governments should be allowed to decide these things, but then threatens sanctuary cities and demands that the local governments enforce immigration law as they dictate, and has begun suggesting that they will intervene in states that have legalized pot.

In other words, he is for Federal intervention when the states have expanded the rights of their citizens, but thinks they shouldn’t intervene when the local governments are trying to restrict freedoms. Makes sense.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 6:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Actually marijuana is a good and less emotionally charged subject for addressing this issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich is ridiculous and Scalia's concurrence is is one of the most remarkably intellectually dishonest and outcome driven pieces of crap I've ever read.

But once we ignore that strained bunch of nonsense, and accept the reality that there is no interstate commerce involved in people growing pot in their own backyard for personal use in their own home, the question becomes very simple.

Why should the people of Mississippi and Utah be able to use the power of the federal government to impose their social norms on the people of Oregon who have a different view? It's a classic example of something that should be decided at the state or even local level.

The problem is that both the left and the right in this country believe in big government. Both want to take control of the federal government and use the power of the federal government to cram their own preferred social norms on everyone else, whether they like it or not. They both want to tell everyone else how to live.

Right now, because the right is in control, the "you'll do it my way" abuse happens to be a right wing agenda. When the Dems are in charge, it's the other way. You may agree with one viewpoint or the other, but the abuse of federal power is just as bad regardless of which side is doing it.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8753
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 11:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually marijuana is a good and less emotionally charged subject for addressing this issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich is ridiculous and Scalia's concurrence is is one of the most remarkably intellectually dishonest and outcome driven pieces of crap I've ever read.

But once we ignore that strained bunch of nonsense, and accept the reality that there is no interstate commerce involved in people growing pot in their own backyard for personal use in their own home, the question becomes very simple.

Why should the people of Mississippi and Utah be able to use the power of the federal government to impose their social norms on the people of Oregon who have a different view? It's a classic example of something that should be decided at the state or even local level.

The problem is that both the left and the right in this country believe in big government. Both want to take control of the federal government and use the power of the federal government to cram their own preferred social norms on everyone else, whether they like it or not. They both want to tell everyone else how to live.

Right now, because the right is in control, the "you'll do it my way" abuse happens to be a right wing agenda. When the Dems are in charge, it's the other way. You may agree with one viewpoint or the other, but the abuse of federal power is just as bad regardless of which side is doing it.



When, if ever, should the Feds get involved, in your opinion?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/25/17 11:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually marijuana is a good and less emotionally charged subject for addressing this issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich is ridiculous and Scalia's concurrence is is one of the most remarkably intellectually dishonest and outcome driven pieces of crap I've ever read.

But once we ignore that strained bunch of nonsense, and accept the reality that there is no interstate commerce involved in people growing pot in their own backyard for personal use in their own home, the question becomes very simple.

Why should the people of Mississippi and Utah be able to use the power of the federal government to impose their social norms on the people of Oregon who have a different view? It's a classic example of something that should be decided at the state or even local level.

The problem is that both the left and the right in this country believe in big government. Both want to take control of the federal government and use the power of the federal government to cram their own preferred social norms on everyone else, whether they like it or not. They both want to tell everyone else how to live.

Right now, because the right is in control, the "you'll do it my way" abuse happens to be a right wing agenda. When the Dems are in charge, it's the other way. You may agree with one viewpoint or the other, but the abuse of federal power is just as bad regardless of which side is doing it.



When, if ever, should the Feds get involved, in your opinion?


When it involves a matter assigned to the Federal Government by the US Constitution or the protection of an individual right protected by the US Constitution. Our federal government does not have plenary powers, but has certain designated powers delegated to it by the states, and beyond that the 10th Amendment provides "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government ONLY has those limited powers specifically assigned to it by the Constitution.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8753
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/26/17 8:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually marijuana is a good and less emotionally charged subject for addressing this issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich is ridiculous and Scalia's concurrence is is one of the most remarkably intellectually dishonest and outcome driven pieces of crap I've ever read.

But once we ignore that strained bunch of nonsense, and accept the reality that there is no interstate commerce involved in people growing pot in their own backyard for personal use in their own home, the question becomes very simple.

Why should the people of Mississippi and Utah be able to use the power of the federal government to impose their social norms on the people of Oregon who have a different view? It's a classic example of something that should be decided at the state or even local level.

The problem is that both the left and the right in this country believe in big government. Both want to take control of the federal government and use the power of the federal government to cram their own preferred social norms on everyone else, whether they like it or not. They both want to tell everyone else how to live.

Right now, because the right is in control, the "you'll do it my way" abuse happens to be a right wing agenda. When the Dems are in charge, it's the other way. You may agree with one viewpoint or the other, but the abuse of federal power is just as bad regardless of which side is doing it.



When, if ever, should the Feds get involved, in your opinion?


When it involves a matter assigned to the Federal Government by the US Constitution or the protection of an individual right protected by the US Constitution. Our federal government does not have plenary powers, but has certain designated powers delegated to it by the states, and beyond that the 10th Amendment provides "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government ONLY has those limited powers specifically assigned to it by the Constitution.


Thanks.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/26/17 5:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Actually marijuana is a good and less emotionally charged subject for addressing this issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich is ridiculous and Scalia's concurrence is is one of the most remarkably intellectually dishonest and outcome driven pieces of crap I've ever read.

But once we ignore that strained bunch of nonsense, and accept the reality that there is no interstate commerce involved in people growing pot in their own backyard for personal use in their own home, the question becomes very simple.

Why should the people of Mississippi and Utah be able to use the power of the federal government to impose their social norms on the people of Oregon who have a different view? It's a classic example of something that should be decided at the state or even local level.

The problem is that both the left and the right in this country believe in big government. Both want to take control of the federal government and use the power of the federal government to cram their own preferred social norms on everyone else, whether they like it or not. They both want to tell everyone else how to live.

Right now, because the right is in control, the "you'll do it my way" abuse happens to be a right wing agenda. When the Dems are in charge, it's the other way. You may agree with one viewpoint or the other, but the abuse of federal power is just as bad regardless of which side is doing it.



When, if ever, should the Feds get involved, in your opinion?


When it involves a matter assigned to the Federal Government by the US Constitution or the protection of an individual right protected by the US Constitution. Our federal government does not have plenary powers, but has certain designated powers delegated to it by the states, and beyond that the 10th Amendment provides "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government ONLY has those limited powers specifically assigned to it by the Constitution.


Thanks.


I will add that the Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond all reasonable shape to justify a lot of federal incursions into state powers, and federal strings have been tied to pervasive federal funding to further expand federal control, so we have been increasingly trampling on federalism for decades. So it doesn't surprise me the feds would issue rules on this subject under Obama, but I'm also not offended when the next administration says "leave this to the states".


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6522
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/26/17 5:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
So it doesn't surprise me the feds would issue rules on this subject under Obama, but I'm also not offended when the next administration says "leave this to the states".


But since the first part of this is true, that federal powers have been extended well beyond the initial framework, and that it has been done by both sides of the aisle, shouldn't that mean that unless the president is himself ideologically pure on this issue "leave this to the states" is not in and of itself a valid position for him to take? That offense can, and should be read into these policies when we look at what he chooses to leave to the states and what he doesn't?

Whether this issue is constitutionally protected or not, it seems consistent with the government as it has evolved to extend protections to a class that is a target of animus at the state level. Once those protections have been extended to the individual, it seems fair to condemn another administration for allowing that discrimination to return when it has made no indication that it is willing to sacrifice all its power to the states, even when so doing works against their platform.

In this situation it seems that we should not be judging based upon the tenants of federalism, as they are clearly not a real factor in the decision making of this president, but rather on the consequences of the policy itself.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11825



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/26/17 7:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
So it doesn't surprise me the feds would issue rules on this subject under Obama, but I'm also not offended when the next administration says "leave this to the states".


But since the first part of this is true, that federal powers have been extended well beyond the initial framework, and that it has been done by both sides of the aisle, shouldn't that mean that unless the president is himself ideologically pure on this issue "leave this to the states" is not in and of itself a valid position for him to take? That offense can, and should be read into these policies when we look at what he chooses to leave to the states and what he doesn't?

Whether this issue is constitutionally protected or not, it seems consistent with the government as it has evolved to extend protections to a class that is a target of animus at the state level. Once those protections have been extended to the individual, it seems fair to condemn another administration for allowing that discrimination to return when it has made no indication that it is willing to sacrifice all its power to the states, even when so doing works against their platform.

In this situation it seems that we should not be judging based upon the tenants of federalism, as they are clearly not a real factor in the decision making of this president, but rather on the consequences of the policy itself.


Nobody's consistent. Presidents aren't. Party's aren't. Congress isn't. Supreme Court isn't.

I mentioned Scalia's Raich opinion above. Inconsistent with other decisions he wrote and completely outcome driven.

This rule isn't about a "right". It's just a policy. Elections come and go and policies change.

Obama used the power of the purse to extort an outcome he wanted from states. Trump wanted to undo it and claimed "states rights" as his excuse.

So go out to the states and win some elections and fix it.


KatValeska



Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 1814
Location: Colorado


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/04/17 2:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote: I was wondering the same thing. I'm laying out very reasonable arguments and you have yet to counter anything I point out with a legitimate retort. You're way out of your league buddy. Just run away.

I'm your Hucklebearer.

So how many state or local employees will it require to enforce any ridiculous law telling someone where they ought to use the bathroom? Does someone stand guard at the door and randomly, or based on an assumption stop someone and say. "excuse me, but I'm going to have to check out your penis/vagina before I can allow you to urinate here?"

This was a meaningless dog's bone thrown to the CPAC types.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin