Obama's Transgender Policy Blocked by Federal Judge


#1

The Obama administration was barred by a judge from enforcing a directive that U.S. public schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their gender identity.
A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Sunday sided with Texas and 12 other states that argued the administration’s policy usurps local control and threatens students’ safety and privacy.
The use of public bathrooms and locker rooms by transgender people has become the latest front in civil rights struggles between social conservatives and the administration following battles over same-sex marriage and military service by openly gay members of the armed forces in which President Barack Obama has sided with gay-rights advocates.

bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-22/obama-s-transgender-bathroom-policy-blocked-by-federal-judge


#2

:thumbsup:


#3

Since the ruling is by a US District Court judge, does his decision have effect anywhere besides his district i.e. the Northern District of Texas?


#4

Yes, but only to those who were petitioners in the case. These were the plaintiffs:

    Alabama

Arizona Department Of Education
Georgia
Louisiana
Kentucky
Maine
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Harrold Independent School District (TX)
Heber-Overgaard Unified School District (AZ)


#5

Thank you! Yes, that makes sense. :slight_smile:

But there is a chance it goes even farther. I had been doing a bit of snooping around to see what I could learn, and I saw some headlines claiming that the ruling applied to entire the United States. Reading further, I found this:

[quote=Texas Tribune]In his order, O’Connor said the injunction should apply nationwide rather than just to schools in the court’s jurisdiction, as requested by lawyers for the federal government, noting that “states who do not want to be covered by this injunction can easily avoid doing so by state law.”
[/quote]

texastribune.org/2016/08/22/forth-worth-judge-blocks-obama-transgender-guideli/


#6

Too bad Nevada isn’t listed…


#7

Yes would be a pity to have a transgender use the “wrong” bathroom while one is legally gambling at a legal brothel. :rolleyes:


#8

Many families make their homes in Nevada and many children attend school there as well.


#9

And it’s beyond schools as well. It’s little kids and swimming lessons and communal showers and privacy. The limited number of individual showers do not begin to address the number of people wanting to use them.
Its about pedophilia and how to best protect your children from those who are predatory and will use mixed bathroom legislation to harm your children (or exploit them through photography and the internet).
It’s about women being able to walk into a campus bathroom late at night and not have to be thinking about their pepper spray and being alone when they find a guy (or guys) in the restroom.
Creating safe /safer spaces is a huge challenge in our society. I’m not sure that the policy advocated by our president is likely to improve things.

Casino and brothel issues might be best addressed in threads specifically dedicated to them, rather than in a thread devoted to concerns over these issues.


#10

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


#11

:):D:thumbsup::yup::clapping::bounce:


#12

It’s nice to see Obama and his promotion of perversion get slapped down. Of course he will probably pressure a higher court judge to over rule the over rule.


#13

Saying that the president promotes perversion is a bit of a stretch, but I do agree with the court’s ruling. Things are getting crazy these days. I’m glad this judge exhibited a bit of common sense.


#14

All this madness is why the next SC appointees are so important in our upcoming election. Just wish some of the Hillary supporters would think of this (unless of course they believe in this IMO madness.


#15

I agree that the next few SCOTUS appointees are critically important. I also agree that Hillary has the potential to appoint some real nut jobs. But, what kind of justices do you think Trump would appoint? If the members had any sense, the Senate would rush to confirm Merrick Garland while they still have the chance.

IMHO, the upcoming election is a lose-lose affair.


#16

They’ll confirm him after Hillary’s victory is official.


#17

He answered that question months ago: List of Potential Supreme Court Justices


#18

How is it a stretch? He is for gay “marriage”. He is for people choosing their gender and using a bathroom which conflicts with their physical true gender. These are perversions. He is for perversion.


#19

Trump has given a list of the judges he would consider and I haven’t seen a nut-job in the bunch.


#20

Trump seems to change his position about one thing or another on an almost daily basis. I have no confidence in anything he says nor do I have any confidence that he would select a Supreme Court nominee from that list.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.