Please understand that Miller and his ilk believe that white men should have all the better jobs, that black people and LGBTQ+ people should have only lowing paying menial jobs if they are hired at all. No woman should work at all in their world. No out LGBTQ+ person should be allowed to work. These are white supremacist and they love tRump. And tRump like this guy’s ideas. He is a sack of hate and vile bile bigotry. Hugs. Scottie
A former anchor on KCAL and KCBS has filed a $5 million lawsuit claiming he was fired because he was a white man. Jeff Vaughn is represented by America First Legal, the conservative legal group that has taken aim at diversity, equity and inclusion programs, calling them illegal “anti-white discrimination.”
Vaughn worked at the CBS-owned station group for eight years, until his departure last September. In the suit, he says he was never given a reason for his firing. “But it was obvious,” the suit states. “He was fired because he is an older, white, heterosexual, male.”
A tRump appointed judge in a case filed by maga republicans and anti-LGBTQ+ bigots / haters to try to strip the gay and trans kids of rights and protections. Notice some places I highlighted, these groups and the Judge used misinformation and republican talking points to make their case. It comes down to hate and bigotry, also the unwillingness to allow society to progress adding more equality. There are no proven cases of any trans person assaulting a straight person in a bathroom, in fact there are many cases that are just the opposite, where trans kids / people have been attacked and even died from assaults by cis people. These people claim that boys will just claim to be trans, that is not how it works. No boy is going to with stand the harassment to change his name, his hair, his mode of dress just to peek in the girl’s locker room or bathroom. What they hell would they see in a girl’s bathroom people, there are no urinals just stalls. Unless the girls like to undress in the sink area, WTF is the boys to see? Again simply hate and bigotry wanting to stop society from change, they want their 1950s society back, not the 2010s. Hugs. Scottie
Republicans have argued that the rule is a ruse by the Biden administration to allow transgender females to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
Kansas high school students, family members and advocates rally for transgender rights in Topeka on Jan. 31.John Hanna / AP file
TOPEKA, Kan. — Enforcement of a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students has been blocked in four states and a patchwork of places elsewhere by a federal judge in Kansas.
U.S. District Judge John Broomes suggested in his ruling Tuesday that the Biden administration must now consider whether forcing compliance remains “worth the effort.”
Broomes’ decision was the third against the rule from a federal judge in less than three weeks but more sweeping than the others. It applies in Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming, which sued over the new rule. It also applies to a Stillwater, Oklahoma, middle school that has a student suing over the rule and to members of three groups backing Republican efforts nationwide to roll back LGBTQ rights. All of them are involved in one lawsuit.
Broomes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, directed the three groups — Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United — to file a list of schools in which their members’ children are students so that their schools also do not comply with the rule. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican who argued the states’ case before Broomes last month, said that could be thousands of schools.
The Biden administration rule is set to take effect in August under the Title IX civil rights law passed in 1972, barring sex discrimination in education. Broomes’ order is to remain in effect through a trial of the lawsuit in Kansas, though the judge concluded that the states and three groups are likely to win.
Republicans have argued that the rule represents a ruse by the Biden administration to allow transgender females to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams, something banned or restricted in Kansas and at least 24 other states. The administration has said it does not apply to athletics. Opponents of the rule have also framed the issue as protecting women and girls’ privacy and safety in bathrooms and locker rooms.
“Gender ideology does not belong in public schools and we are glad the courts made the correct call to support parental rights,” Moms for Liberty co-founders Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice said in a statement.
LGBTQ youth, their parents, health care providers and others say restrictions on transgender youth harms their mental health and makes an often marginalized group even more vulnerable. The Department of Education has previously stood by its rule and President Joe Biden has promised to protect LGBTQ rights.
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday.
Besides Broomes, two other federal judges issued rulings in mid-June blocking the new rule in 10 other states. The rule would protect LGBTQ students by expanding the definition of sexual harassment at schools and colleges and adding safeguards for victims.
Like the other judges, Broomes called the rule arbitrary and concluded that the Department of Education and its secretary, Miguel Cardona, exceeded the authority granted by Title IX. He also concluded that the rule violated the free speech and religious freedom rights of parents and students who reject transgender students’ gender identities and want to espouse those views at school or elsewhere in public.
Broomes said his 47-page order leaves it to the Biden administration “to determine in the first instance whether continued enforcement in compliance with this decision is worth the effort.”
Broomes also said nontransgender students’ privacy and safety could be harmed by the rule. He cited the statement of the Oklahoma middle school student that “on some occasions” cisgender boys used a girls’ bathroom “because they knew they could get away with it.”
“It is not hard to imagine that, under the Final Rule, an industrious older teenage boy may simply claim to identify as female to gain access to the girls’ showers, dressing rooms, or locker rooms, so that he can observe female peers disrobe and shower,” Broomes wrote, echoing a common but largely false narrative from anti-trans activists about gender identity and how schools accommodate transgender students.
U.S. District Judge John Broomes’ decision was the third against the rule from a federal judge in less than three weeks but more sweeping than the others.James L. Greenlee2 days ago
They really seem to believe that LGBTQ kids don’t exist, unless they’ve been convinced by someone to “turn.” It’s so ludicrous.
WTF is wrong with these people? Nobody, never in the history of everything, never has someone decided to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Trans. It’s how a person is born. Not protecting the rights of LGBT human beings is like denying rights to a person because of the color of their eyes, or their skin. Yeah, we used to do the skin thing and that was a gigantic mistake that these motherfuckers want to make a reality again.
Also, why do this? How someone lives their life has exactly zero impact on your life. You’re just being a dick.
Like I keep saying, I am dead. This is purgatory. I need to find the light to pass on.
They continue to believe the lie that sexual orientation is freely chosen and that if you choose to be gay you’re sinning, because Jesus said so – only he didn’t.
Christians think people “choosing” to be gay presents an existential threat to humanity that must be eradicated, as though LGBT people haven’t existed throughout time.
Well, they lost all the arguments to that effect so they’re legislating and ruling as if the arguments never took place and as if their lies are facts.
There is too much on the line in our next election to let the main stream media dictate the terms of who should be POTUS. All of us with skin in the game should put our nose to the grindstone and reelect Biden/Harris 2024!
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Tuesday, July 02, 2024 at 2:03:10a EDT
I read a story, not here, today saying that the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts which gave immunity to US Presidents for actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts; was based on NOTHING in the Constitution.
They just made it up.
I agree with that idea, because the Constitution says they can’t do it.
Issue #1:
Granting Immunity to a sitting President for all actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts
a) conflicts directly with Article II, Section 4 and
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Presidents, like all other civil Officers of the United States are subject to be removed from Office on Impeachment for… high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A Senate affirmation of a House Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold any Office under the United States again.
BUT — the Party convicted of same, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
So, in plain English, a President is Impeached and removed from Office for a crime WHILE President and removed from the Office, once removed from Office they can still be indicted and prosecuted for the crime.
The John Roberts Court just said that isn’t true. But to my knowledge, no one has altered those portions of the Constitution, which means they remain in effect and the SCOTUS decision today is in conflict with the Constitution. When something new in Law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Every time.
Issue #2
The decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts creates immunity out of thin air.
The problem is, there is a very good reason to believe that Presidents have no immunity because the founders never meant them to. The proof?
So I've been thinking for nearly 8 years now, that Donald Trump was the most dangerous man in America.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
You are free to peruse the entirety of Article II at this link:
There is not an iota of a hint of Immunity for the President in Article II. In fact when referring to behavior which might be corrupt, the only mention is of Impeachment and the reasons why a President might be impeached, in Article II, Section 4 (as noted above).
If the Constitutional Convention attendees of 1787 meant to provide Presidents with immunity, seeing as how they noted the immunity for Congress in Article I, wouldn’t they have ENUMERATED the form and style of immunity they meant for Presidents to have?
Since they absolutely did not enumerate any such immunity — it follows that the Founders never meant Presidents to have immunity.
As an aside, the Supreme Court is an appellate court, the Court of the last resort for appeals from the lower Federal Courts.
They are not empowered to create new law or to ALTER the Constitution with one of their decisions.
The only path to cure this damage is to limit the power and authority of the US Supreme Court via Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That to my knowledge is the only place wherein the SCOTUS bench is liable to regulation, by Congress.
To make that happen?
The Democratic Party and President Biden need to rile up the Liberals and Moderates across America to come out and vote in numbers high enough to scare the living daylights out of the conservatives, in the Congress and the Legislatures. To come into power on Jan 3, 2025 with such a large majority in both Houses of Congress that the first 100 days of the new Congress will see such legislation as is necessary to rein in this corrupt and dangerous Court Bench.
Add seats to the Bench ( four to bring it to 13 seats to match the number of Circuit Courts) and force them to abide by the same Law which currently guides the actions and ethics of all the rest of the Federal Judges by updating The Judiciary Act.
This will bring balance back to the court (which would be 7 (D) appointed and 6 (R) appointed Justices), and prevent future overreach like that committed by the majority in the John Roberts Court in 2024.
Scottie's Playtime 