• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama orders public schools to allow transgendered to use bathroom of choice

My contention is that liberals want constitutional rights extended to everyone while social conservatives then start a culture war when the courts (rightfully) always side against them in their efforts to fight such measures.

The courts never come in to start the battle between opposing sides on any issue. Frankly, I'm ok with rights movements, but cultural wars are in my opinion bull****.
 
The courts never come in to start the battle between opposing sides on any issue. Frankly, I'm ok with rights movements, but cultural wars are in my opinion bull****.

Not only that they are bs. My HUUUGE problem is that the envelope pushers NEVER declare how far they will push.

We never hear from gays, blacks, muslims this: This is a complete list of our grievances and demands. Once we get what is on that list, we will stop. NEVER.

Why they never give us that list? Because by the time we would be done reading it, the society would very likely respond with: NO F****** WAY! to the first and all the other items on that list.

Short version: yes, we hate being on a slippery slope with no end in sight.
 
Last edited:
You are missing the point. Social conservatives fought all of that. So I guess you are right. As long we maintained a system where white socially conservative evangelicals were able to codify their religious beliefs into law, and so long as women, gays, and minorities were all treated as second class citizens under the law, then there would be no culture wars because the authoritarian right would simply be getting everything they want. Thus by trying to extend rights and protections to everyone, and prevent a theocracy, liberals start all the culture wars.

males and females exist. It is a biological fact. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Now, it is certainly true that religion may, or may not guide, what this fact means in everyday life. Perhaps it should not matter if men and women share the same bathrooms or locker rooms in schools and sports clubs.
But as the entire argument of the transgender folks rests upon the claim that gender and sex does matter, they and their supporters ought be the last people making the claim.
 
A couple of issues I see with the DoE's letter:

1 - Title IX speaks to sex discrimination in school. The term gender identity didn't exist when Title IX was passed and no matter the DoE's interpretation the sex and gender identity are the same thing the courts are going to have to answer that question if Congress doesn't.

2 - Since the student can assert gender identity absent any documentation from anyone, including the student's parents, how is the school to differentiate between a legitimate transgender case and a guy who just wants to see naked girls. As the letter is written the entire male student body of a school could claim they are girls and the school would have to believe them and give them access to female only restrooms, locker rooms and housing.

3 - From the perspective of intent the DoE is trying to trying to make a tiny minority of students comfortable at the expense of the comfort of a large number of students. That makes no sense at all.

Even Scalia used a fairly liberal interpretation of "sex discrimination" when interpreting the intent of the law.

Also, I do not care if you are a guy in the guy's bathroom, if you are going out of your way to leer at me or try to see my genitals then you are likely breaking the law. And why does people's reason suddenly stop when this issue comes up? Who wants to be known as the guy who pretends to be a girl so he can occupy the same space as them when they take a crap? Are people really that concerned that boys are lining up to be that person? Who wants to be the guy who has to change in front of a whole locker room full of girls? Your most ardent exhibitionists aside, I can't imagine there are throngs of boys waiting to have their tally wacker judged by the female student body just so they can glimpse at something they can get for free on their home DSL
 
Even Scalia used a fairly liberal interpretation of "sex discrimination" when interpreting the intent of the law.

Also, I do not care if you are a guy in the guy's bathroom, if you are going out of your way to leer at me or try to see my genitals then you are likely breaking the law. And why does people's reason suddenly stop when this issue comes up? Who wants to be known as the guy who pretends to be a girl so he can occupy the same space as them when they take a crap? Are people really that concerned that boys are lining up to be that person? Who wants to be the guy who has to change in front of a whole locker room full of girls? Your most ardent exhibitionists aside, I can't imagine there are throngs of boys waiting to have their tally wacker judged by the female student body just so they can glimpse at something they can get for free on their home DSL

To your point on interpretation that may be so but until a case is argued and decided the DoE's is dubious.

On my second point I'm simply pointing out a rather glaringly obvious problem with the letter as written. Do I think the entire male student body is going to be lining up to use the girl's locker room? No. Do I think that some boys are going to try to game the system - even to just say they got over? Absolutely. I wasn't a teen boy so far in the past to not remember the extent some guys would go to see Mary Jane's boobs.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Yes, you are right: The SC can't make law - but it does interpret the Constitution; and it's interpretation reads gay marriage is a Constitutional right!

For better or worse ...

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Where does The Constitution enumerate the to gay marriage. Which amendment?
 
Obama administration tells public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms of their choice | Fox News



I have made it very clear that I could really care less about what bathroom a transgendered person uses. My problem with this "order", though, is illustrated by this sentence...

While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.



If the order does not have the force of law then how can there be penalties imposed for not complying with it? It either has force backing it or it doesn't and the threat of consequence for non compliance is CLEARLY force.

Does the administration have the constitutional authority to issue such an order?

Obama is a murdering baby killing pervert who wants young girls to be preyed upon by deviants. He and his evil cohorts should repent before they go to Hell.

In the meantime, he can go screw himself.
 
Even Scalia used a fairly liberal interpretation of "sex discrimination" when interpreting the intent of the law.

Also, I do not care if you are a guy in the guy's bathroom, if you are going out of your way to leer at me or try to see my genitals then you are likely breaking the law. And why does people's reason suddenly stop when this issue comes up? Who wants to be known as the guy who pretends to be a girl so he can occupy the same space as them when they take a crap? Are people really that concerned that boys are lining up to be that person? Who wants to be the guy who

Ect. Ect.

But isnt this the argument of the transgender folks-- that it is unconsionable to force a woman trapped in a mans body to use male facilities?
If gender is so important for this person, why is it suddenly not so important for women being forced to share facilites with a woman trapped in a mans body?
 
The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Where does The Constitution enumerate the to gay marriage. Which amendment?

Marbury v Madison and 230 years of judicial history says otherwise.

You can go on all you want about whether the court should philosophically have the power to review law but the fact of the matter is that they have exercised that power for centuries and that will likely not change.
 
The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Where does The Constitution enumerate the to gay marriage. Which amendment?
You either lack the knowledge & understanding to continue a fruitful discussion at these levels, or intentionally are playing games - neither scenario is worthy of investing any more of my time here.
 
You either lack the knowledge & understanding to continue a fruitful discussion at these levels, or intentionally are playing games - neither scenario is worthy of investing any more of my time here.

Show me where Article 3 says interpret. One time, where does it say interpret?
 
Yes, you are right: The SC can't make law - but it does interpret the Constitution; and it's interpretation reads gay marriage is a Constitutional right!

For better or worse ...

It decides cases, it doesnt make law. There decisions apply only to the case before them, though lower courts of course use them as precedence. Regardless, they have no enforcement power. They are only judges.
 
Marbury v Madison and 230 years of judicial history says otherwise.

You can go on all you want about whether the court should philosophically have the power to review law but the fact of the matter is that they have exercised that power for centuries and that will likely not change.

So they can give themselves legal powers? Thats the opposite of what the constitution says.
 
To them, Article 3 can be interpreted that it allows the SC to interpret whatever the SC feels like interpreting.

Exactly. Which of course doesnt matter to liberals. They are results oriented. They dont really care how they get there. If the court agrees with them, good. If it doesnt, ignore them.
 
The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Where does The Constitution enumerate the to gay marriage. Which amendment?

OMG!!!!! Sig material. Thank you!
 
How am I wrong?

I can't believe you actually want to try tobridicule that statement!!...LMAO

Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for.
 
Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for.

Where does Article 3 give them that power? Post the text.
 
Interpreting the constitution is the sole job of the SCOTUS. That is what they are there for.

You can't do it. Can you? That's fine. You have my permission to leave that Sig as long as you like. :lamo
 
Where does Article 3 give them that power? Post the text.

I'll just let Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes explain it to you...

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.​

More at the link...

I don't know... perhaps you know more than he does.
 
at least i'm not wasting my time on an anonymous message board defending forced child labor in the third world while at the same time arguing that my own children are going to be accosted by heterosexuals pretending to be transgendered.

:yawn: ad hominem is among the most obvious, and therefore the weakest, of the fallacies.

Incidentally, you added the word "forced" in there. I have never argued for slavery, that is a mischaracterization. I have pointed out that the options for children who work in the third world are often not better than work, and that we need to understand that when we go in there as the Ugly American trying to force our presumptions upon them.
 
I'll just let Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes explain it to you...

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.

And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.​

link...

I don't know... perhaps you know more than he does.

Is that Article 3? It isn't. Is it?

Ok...where does Article 3 of The Constitution day interpret?
 
Is that Article 3? It isn't. Is it?

Ok...where does Article 3 of The Constitution day interpret?

what a dodge...

I'm pretty sure most of my right winged buddies on this board also disagree with you. But if you say they don't have the power or its not in the SCOTUS' job scope to interpret the constitution, tell us what those robed nerds do then.

I know the angle you are trying to take of narrowing the scope as much as possible so that I can't constitutionally eat spaghetti because the constitution never mentions spaghetti in it... but that ain't gonna fly sonny.
 
Back
Top Bottom