Men-Pretending-To-Be-Women DOJ Lawsuits & School Decrees Just Got Hamstrung: Judge Warns Lynch

[Silhouette]

17 million women rape survivors are going to be taken into account in this legal battle. Mark my words.

Your words are not worth a damn.

Maybe so, but theirs are...

 

[gallantwarrior]

If the law had actually been updated you'd have a point, but since it wasn't, you don't, but I have a feeling you already knew that.

Laws get updated many ways, like when we figured out that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

That was handled by the courts. The DOJ is not a legislative or arbitrary body, but you already knew that too.

Title Nine covers gender. Deal with it.

It covers gender, not delusions.

Many sexes, even more genders.

TWO sexes: MALE and FEMALE. Two genders: MALE and FEMALE. Anything else is a mental/psychological construct/aberration, unless specifically supported by a scientifically verifiable genetic abnormality.

 

[Jack4jill]

17 million women rape survivors are going to be taken into account in this legal battle. Mark my words.

Your words are not worth a damn.

Maybe so, but theirs are...

Their rape doesn't take away the rights of others to be treated fairly.

If that were true, men would be banned.

 

[Jack4jill]

Laws get updated many ways, like when we figured out that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

That was handled by the courts. The DOJ is not a legislative or arbitrary body, but you already knew that too.

Title Nine covers gender. Deal with it.

It covers gender, not delusions.

Many sexes, even more genders.

TWO sexes: MALE and FEMALE. Two genders: MALE and FEMALE. Anything else is a mental/psychological construct/aberration, unless specifically supported by a scientifically verifiable genetic abnormality.

Science says you couldn't be more wrong.

Religion doesn't agree with you either.

The 6 Most Common Biological Sexes in Humans

More Than Just Male and Female: The Six Genders in Classical Judaism

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Men-pretending-to-be-women (identical meaning to "transgender" for purposes of clarity and legal definition), just got nudged back from the door with the sign "women" on it.....let me explain.

Just recently, a federal judge Ordered Loretta Lynch's DOJ lawyers either stripped of their bar standing across state lines, or to take remedial legal ethics classes. The reason? The judge found, as well as other courts found, that Lynch's DOJ has be purposefully misleading the courts and the American public about law and legal practice in their various endeavors. The judge also sent a warning to Lynch that any future misleading will not be tolerated: 179125570172

"This Order is tailored to give the 26 Plaintiff States some avenue for relief from the possibility of any damage that may result from the misconduct of the Defendants’ lawyers and to prevent future harm to any Plaintiff State due to the Government’s misrepresentations. The Court also enters this Order to deter and prevent future misconduct by Justice Department lawyers by ordering an appropriately tailored continuing legal education program, which will not only serve to educate the uninitiated, but more importantly will remind all trial lawyers that their honest and ethical participation is a necessity for the proper administration of justice. It also compels the Attorney General, or her designee, to take the necessary steps to ensure that DOJ attorneys act honestly in the future."

And the footnote just below that paragraph (all near the end of the Order from the link above)

18 Other courts have noticed these problems as well. Just in the last six months, both the Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit have questioned the conduct of those employed by the Department of Justice. United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015); In re United States, No. 15-3793, 2016 WL 1105077 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016). The Fifth Circuit went further and suggested that not only was there misleading conduct, but the conduct was followed by an inadequate investigation and a cover-up. These are just two of an ever-growing number of opinions that demonstrate the lack of ethical awareness and/or compliance by some at the Department of Justice.

And further..

The Court does not have the power to disbar the counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state lawyers who act unethically in court. By a separate sealed order that it is simultaneously issuing, that is being done...The Court cannot help but hope that the new Attorney General, being a former United States Attorney, would also believe strongly that it is the duty of DOJ attorneys to act honestly in all of their dealings with a court, with opposing counsel and with the American people....

\

It's that last bit that creates the snag for men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender). In the DOJ's recent bullying of public schools to allow boys to shower with girls or face withdrawel of federal education funds, Lynch cited improperly (she's a lawyer, she knows how to read), Title IX of the education code. That is intentional misleading of the public. Nowhere in Title IX does it talk about males pretending to be females:

******* Overview Of Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972, 20 U.S.C. A§ 1681 Et. Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice
On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies.

********
Do you see anything about males pretending to be females? Neither do I. What's worse for Lynch is that Justice Ginsburg already spoke and clarified Title IX with exact respect to segregated bathrooms (and obviously showers, locker rooms etc.) marked "women" (or "men") outside:

“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy,” she wrote in a 1975 commentary printed by the Washington Post....“Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle,” she wrote.....The author?....Ruth Ginsburg, now on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lynch representing to the American public that Title IX covers boys-pretending-to-be-girls (transgender) is intentional deception of the Pubic.

But it gets worse. Lynch's threats to schools were more veiled,not direct. Her threats to North Carolina came with punch and promise...and a separate suit filed by her Office against NC. In the suit, it's entire hinge & premise relies on Lynch's purposefully false interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In it Lynch claims that the Act covers men-pretending-to-be-women "as a protected class". NOWHERE in the US Constitution nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act does it even remotely insinuate, much less say men-pretending-to-be-women are a "protected class".

What the DOJ is up to is using "incremental subterfuge from below". And that's going to come out in the future in a big way in other LGBT legal advances. Only Congress can create specific language to add or remove from the US Constitution. Judges are not allowed to add extra and new language to the Constitution. The purpose of the Highest Court of Appeal, the USSC, is to INTERPRET the Constitution against legal challenges from below that come before it. What the USSC in collusion with lower courts has done, is to create a Trojan Horse of ghost-writing new terms to the Constitution's 14th Amendment...each blaming the other for "the ultimate source of the findings/interpretation" (new law not written/ratified by Congress). Lynch looks to a lower court ruling in violation of the Constitution (because men-pretending-to-be-women are to be found not even remotely insinuated in the Constitution as "protected") to justify her lawsuit against North Carolina. She should know better. And in fact I argue she DOES know better. She is pushing it, and it's something the judge warned her not to do.

So, wisely, North Carolina asks Lynch in its own lawsuit to clarify what her department means by "transgenders having rights" (men-pretending-to-be-women having "rights"). Lynch now on her heels and scrambling, must HONESTLY and with ethical intent, define to the American public, and particularly North Carlolina how it is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers a behavior and not a static thing like sex or race. NC attorneys (and Lynch) knows she can't do that. Because if one odd behavior like men-pretending-to-be-women (transgenders) has protected status from the majority regulation, which other odd behaviors the majority objects to do not?

Lynch knows she's backed into a corner on the clarification issue. And now she has a court Order warning her not to deceive the public further...or else...

If I were Lynch, and wanted to keep my job, I would very meekly retract my veiled threats to public school boards across the country...and...I'd retract my lawsuit against NC. She is heading into a box canyon and there is literally no way out for her unless she very quickly retraces her steps.

Remember on the men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender) issue with bathrooms, showers etc., there's a real, actual static class protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Ginsburg subsequent statement: the 17 million women rape survivors who would be plunged into PTSD the instant they saw a man-pretending-to-be-a-woman standing naked next to them in the showers behind a door marked "women"... These people ACTUALLY DO have Constitutional protection. Men-pretending-to-be-women DO NOT.

The USSC is NOT allowed to interpret lower court rulings that mislead the Public about the actual wording of the Congress-ratified 14th Amendment. And, last time I checked, the USSC Justices are also required to be in good standing with the bar in order to continue their jobs..

. Normally I don't read such long posts, but I'm glad I did. This is good news and to know that Justice Ginzberg would vote against the Obama/Hillary Regime's DOJ is heartwarming. Looks like old liberals aren't following lockstep with these new Liberal Fascists.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Transgender people go both ways. And transgender people already use your bathrooms without it causing issues so, stop panicking.

You don't consider women rape survivor's PTSD an issue then? We'll just tell them they're silly for panicking.

Yes, they are. A transgender male, who wants to be them, is not going to rape them. The dicks they need to worry about are using the urinals in the other bathroom.

There is no such sex as "transgendered male" or transgendered Female".. This quote explains the sexes and how many their are:

Genesis 1
[27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…

 

[amrchaos]

Transgender people go both ways. And transgender people already use your bathrooms without it causing issues so, stop panicking.

You don't consider women rape survivor's PTSD an issue then? We'll just tell them they're silly for panicking.

Yes, they are. A transgender male, who wants to be them, is not going to rape them. The dicks they need to worry about are using the urinals in the other bathroom.

There is no such sex as "transgendered male" or transgendered Female".. This quote explains the sexes:

Genesis 1
[27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…

He is trying to confuse intersex with transgender.

The minute he start talking genetics, you can ignore him.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Transgender people go both ways. And transgender people already use your bathrooms without it causing issues so, stop panicking.

If you don't know the difference between what you say - and what the DOJ is trying to do....well...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Who keeps posting pictures of pathetic she-males dressed up to look like whores? If anyone has a distorted view of the role of the sexes in society, it's the cult of LGBT. Ever notice how they don't just play pretend of normal men or women? They always go for the "super whore" or "super body builder" stereotypes.

Folks, your extreme and obvious issues with gender are not society'this is burden to bear. Get help. And no, help doesn't mean carcinogenic hormones and butchery, leaving you mutilated halflings. Help means THERAPY. YEARS or even decades of it if necessary.

Time to get over your fear of others.

It's childish.

. Would you fuck that Jack4jill. ?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Transgenders are rare.
Transvestites are not.
A good example is Bruce Jenner. He is a transvestite. He WANTS to parade as a woman. He DESIRES to look like a woman.
Evidence of that, is there are all kinds of recent photos where he is dressed in men's clothing again...wearing men's hats and sunglasses.
A cross dresser (Jenner) like dressing up like a woman, but goes back to dressing like a man...and back and forth.
A transgender does not do this. They may dress like their biological sex to avoid the hassle...but they ONLY want to dress like the sex they identify.

My point?
This "law" by the DOJ gives license to perverted cross dressers to fufill a fantasy...which far outnumber transgenders who - ARE ALREADY USING OTHER BATHROOMS and have been for years.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Your own link says otherwise. Please point to any other requirement than verbalization: doctor's care, hormones, appearance, anything other than the word of the individual. I've looked and can't find it. Your link says if a student verbalizes his feeling like a girl, the school must allow him into the girls' facilities. Surely there has been a doctor visit before this point, no?

Common sense says the school is not going to make this happen because on Tuesday they claim to be female all of a sudden. Won't happen.

Then you shouldn't object to getting that in writing. The writing that exists now says it MUST happen. It specifically states that there are NO other requirements and the schools MUST comply on verbalization ONLY, under threats of federal sanctions. The schools cannot just "not make this happen."

I know you people have no common sense but most do. This is not about boys or girls playing dress-up for a day.

The law states the school MUST allow access to opposite facilities. There is no common sense involved or allowed. That is the whole of my problem. Your position is that schools will violate the law and lose federal monies because it is just common sense. There is no point continuing because your position (just break the law) and mine (fix the law to add requirement of some form of proof) are incompatible. Fixing the law is just common sense, but you object. It makes me suspect your motives.

The schools are going to comply, using common sense.

Don't you just love that word.

COMPLY!

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Then you shouldn't object to getting that in writing. The writing that exists now says it MUST happen. It specifically states that there are NO other requirements and the schools MUST comply on verbalization ONLY, under threats of federal sanctions. The schools cannot just "not make this happen."

I know you people have no common sense but most do. This is not about boys or girls playing dress-up for a day.

The law states the school MUST allow access to opposite facilities. There is no common sense involved or allowed. That is the whole of my problem. Your position is that schools will violate the law and lose federal monies because it is just common sense. There is no point continuing because your position (just break the law) and mine (fix the law to add requirement of some form of proof) are incompatible. Fixing the law is just common sense, but you object. It makes me suspect your motives.

The schools are going to comply, using common sense.

It's their call. Obey the law or punish the kids?

It's not a hard decision.

I want to see you punish the kids.

I'm calling your bluff.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The law states the school MUST allow access to opposite facilities. There is no common sense involved or allowed. That is the whole of my problem. Your position is that schools will violate the law and lose federal monies because it is just common sense. There is no point continuing because your position (just break the law) and mine (fix the law to add requirement of some form of proof) are incompatible. Fixing the law is just common sense, but you object. It makes me suspect your motives.

The schools are going to comply, using common sense.

It's their call. Obey the law or punish the kids?

It's not a hard decision.

Easy fix, stop paying Federal Taxes....let them come for a few MILLION of us!

Happy to lock your kind up, where you belong.

Jack boot thug

 

[mudwhistle]

Transgender people go both ways. And transgender people already use your bathrooms without it causing issues so, stop panicking.

 

[Tilly]

Time to get over your fear of others.

It's childish.

People are going to have to level with that boy on the verge of puberty that his extreme thickening eyebrows, squaring jaw, large teeth, large nose and emerging 5 Oclock shadow and crotch bulge that he's not a girl.

And never will be...

She has it right, a girl brain in a boy body. And that problem will be fixed soon enough.

He also constantly whines that boys won't date him because they know hes a boy in a dress and they don't want to be homosexual. Sad

 

[Tilly]

She has it right, a girl brain in a boy body. And that problem will be fixed soon enough.

For doctor's appointments post-butchery, as a halfling, will he go to an OB/GYN ? How many periods will he have a year? On average? Can he compete against real girls in segregated sporting clubs? What will he use for incontinence when the brutal surgery maims his nerves and delicate anatomy around the urinary tract? Depends or another brand? Will he be able to cope with his sexual numbness too?

How will he explain his big meaty hands to his ....wife....husband...????

She will be as much a girl as any XY female. They have the same issues.

No periods which, I've heard of worse things.

No periods. So NOT AS MUCH A GIRL as a real female. Thanks.

 

[Silhouette]

Transgender people go both ways. And transgender people already use your bathrooms without it causing issues so, stop panicking.

If you don't know the difference between what you say - and what the DOJ is trying to do....well...

Exactly. The pervs on this thread are, as usual, trying to promote LGBT sex and a thousand other strawmen while the actual topic focuses on the clarification issue that Loretta Lynch is going to have to grapple with.

And...more importantly...grapple with while she is now under a court Order from the 5th circuit to be scrupulously honest and not mislead the public. That's why I keep asking the LGBT cult drones here "what EXACTLY is a transgender woman"? (& how does that apply to the 1964 Civil Rights Act & Title IX) And none of them will answer. But Loretta Lynch HAS to. And because of the court Order from the judge, she HAS to without misleading the public or any court.

Worse still, her most uber-left champion on the USSC, Justice Ginsburg, has already said that that the equality in the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to sex segregated bathrooms, showers etc. And Ginsburg didn't just mention that in passing; she asserted it emphatically. She said it as a reassurance to the public "this won't go too far or get too weird, I PROMISE you".

And, here we are today... and now Ginsburg's sitting on the very Bench that Lynch will be pitching her bullshit arguments to, while trying not to get held in contempt of court. This should be intersting to watch.. Between Ginsburg, North Carolina and that judge in Texas, they've got Lynch pinned deep in a corner in a box canyon. And I'll be honest here....I love watching evil lawyers struggle in tangled webs they've woven.

 

[EriktheRed]

Men-pretending-to-be-women (identical meaning to "transgender" for purposes of clarity and legal definition), just got nudged back from the door with the sign "women" on it.....let me explain.

Just recently, a federal judge Ordered Loretta Lynch's DOJ lawyers either stripped of their bar standing across state lines, or to take remedial legal ethics classes. The reason? The judge found, as well as other courts found, that Lynch's DOJ has be purposefully misleading the courts and the American public about law and legal practice in their various endeavors. The judge also sent a warning to Lynch that any future misleading will not be tolerated: 179125570172

"This Order is tailored to give the 26 Plaintiff States some avenue for relief from the possibility of any damage that may result from the misconduct of the Defendants’ lawyers and to prevent future harm to any Plaintiff State due to the Government’s misrepresentations. The Court also enters this Order to deter and prevent future misconduct by Justice Department lawyers by ordering an appropriately tailored continuing legal education program, which will not only serve to educate the uninitiated, but more importantly will remind all trial lawyers that their honest and ethical participation is a necessity for the proper administration of justice. It also compels the Attorney General, or her designee, to take the necessary steps to ensure that DOJ attorneys act honestly in the future."

And the footnote just below that paragraph (all near the end of the Order from the link above)

18 Other courts have noticed these problems as well. Just in the last six months, both the Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit have questioned the conduct of those employed by the Department of Justice. United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015); In re United States, No. 15-3793, 2016 WL 1105077 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016). The Fifth Circuit went further and suggested that not only was there misleading conduct, but the conduct was followed by an inadequate investigation and a cover-up. These are just two of an ever-growing number of opinions that demonstrate the lack of ethical awareness and/or compliance by some at the Department of Justice.

And further..

The Court does not have the power to disbar the counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state lawyers who act unethically in court. By a separate sealed order that it is simultaneously issuing, that is being done...The Court cannot help but hope that the new Attorney General, being a former United States Attorney, would also believe strongly that it is the duty of DOJ attorneys to act honestly in all of their dealings with a court, with opposing counsel and with the American people....

\

It's that last bit that creates the snag for men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender). In the DOJ's recent bullying of public schools to allow boys to shower with girls or face withdrawel of federal education funds, Lynch cited improperly (she's a lawyer, she knows how to read), Title IX of the education code. That is intentional misleading of the public. Nowhere in Title IX does it talk about males pretending to be females:

******* Overview Of Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972, 20 U.S.C. A§ 1681 Et. Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice
On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies.

********
Do you see anything about males pretending to be females? Neither do I. What's worse for Lynch is that Justice Ginsburg already spoke and clarified Title IX with exact respect to segregated bathrooms (and obviously showers, locker rooms etc.) marked "women" (or "men") outside:

“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy,” she wrote in a 1975 commentary printed by the Washington Post....“Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle,” she wrote.....The author?....Ruth Ginsburg, now on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lynch representing to the American public that Title IX covers boys-pretending-to-be-girls (transgender) is intentional deception of the Pubic.

But it gets worse. Lynch's threats to schools were more veiled,not direct. Her threats to North Carolina came with punch and promise...and a separate suit filed by her Office against NC. In the suit, it's entire hinge & premise relies on Lynch's purposefully false interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In it Lynch claims that the Act covers men-pretending-to-be-women "as a protected class". NOWHERE in the US Constitution nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act does it even remotely insinuate, much less say men-pretending-to-be-women are a "protected class".

What the DOJ is up to is using "incremental subterfuge from below". And that's going to come out in the future in a big way in other LGBT legal advances. Only Congress can create specific language to add or remove from the US Constitution. Judges are not allowed to add extra and new language to the Constitution. The purpose of the Highest Court of Appeal, the USSC, is to INTERPRET the Constitution against legal challenges from below that come before it. What the USSC in collusion with lower courts has done, is to create a Trojan Horse of ghost-writing new terms to the Constitution's 14th Amendment...each blaming the other for "the ultimate source of the findings/interpretation" (new law not written/ratified by Congress). Lynch looks to a lower court ruling in violation of the Constitution (because men-pretending-to-be-women are to be found not even remotely insinuated in the Constitution as "protected") to justify her lawsuit against North Carolina. She should know better. And in fact I argue she DOES know better. She is pushing it, and it's something the judge warned her not to do.

So, wisely, North Carolina asks Lynch in its own lawsuit to clarify what her department means by "transgenders having rights" (men-pretending-to-be-women having "rights"). Lynch now on her heels and scrambling, must HONESTLY and with ethical intent, define to the American public, and particularly North Carlolina how it is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers a behavior and not a static thing like sex or race. NC attorneys (and Lynch) knows she can't do that. Because if one odd behavior like men-pretending-to-be-women (transgenders) has protected status from the majority regulation, which other odd behaviors the majority objects to do not?

Lynch knows she's backed into a corner on the clarification issue. And now she has a court Order warning her not to deceive the public further...or else...

If I were Lynch, and wanted to keep my job, I would very meekly retract my veiled threats to public school boards across the country...and...I'd retract my lawsuit against NC. She is heading into a box canyon and there is literally no way out for her unless she very quickly retraces her steps.

Remember on the men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender) issue with bathrooms, showers etc., there's a real, actual static class protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Ginsburg subsequent statement: the 17 million women rape survivors who would be plunged into PTSD the instant they saw a man-pretending-to-be-a-woman standing naked next to them in the showers behind a door marked "women"... These people ACTUALLY DO have Constitutional protection. Men-pretending-to-be-women DO NOT.

The USSC is NOT allowed to interpret lower court rulings that mislead the Public about the actual wording of the Congress-ratified 14th Amendment. And, last time I checked, the USSC Justices are also required to be in good standing with the bar in order to continue their jobs..

TL;DR

The judge is a total wingnut and this won't stand.

Next...

 

[Yousaidwhat]

This is a sensitive issue and can be resolved without forced compliance.

What some see is a boy, becoming a girl and wanting to be treated as such. I would presume understanding from many.

When you research the subject some of the research leads you to sites that will make some people gasp with astonishment.

I have found police reports and news of prostitution and the sale of sex on the internet. Some of these individuals are being recruited and trafficked into the sex trade.

Drive thru Santa Ana and Los Angeles at night and the sex trade is obvious.

Research NIH and you find reports on the health issues in the trans-gendered community. Diseases and the failure to seek medical treatment and the spread of these diseases.

The National Center for trans-gendered equality is pushing for decriminalization of the trans-gendered sex trade.

This conversation has gone far beyond the use of bathrooms and there are legitimate and valid concerns that need to be addressed.

Calling people childish for expressing their concerns will not gain support for those who demand it.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Men-pretending-to-be-women (identical meaning to "transgender" for purposes of clarity and legal definition), just got nudged back from the door with the sign "women" on it.....let me explain.

Just recently, a federal judge Ordered Loretta Lynch's DOJ lawyers either stripped of their bar standing across state lines, or to take remedial legal ethics classes. The reason? The judge found, as well as other courts found, that Lynch's DOJ has be purposefully misleading the courts and the American public about law and legal practice in their various endeavors. The judge also sent a warning to Lynch that any future misleading will not be tolerated: 179125570172

"This Order is tailored to give the 26 Plaintiff States some avenue for relief from the possibility of any damage that may result from the misconduct of the Defendants’ lawyers and to prevent future harm to any Plaintiff State due to the Government’s misrepresentations. The Court also enters this Order to deter and prevent future misconduct by Justice Department lawyers by ordering an appropriately tailored continuing legal education program, which will not only serve to educate the uninitiated, but more importantly will remind all trial lawyers that their honest and ethical participation is a necessity for the proper administration of justice. It also compels the Attorney General, or her designee, to take the necessary steps to ensure that DOJ attorneys act honestly in the future."

And the footnote just below that paragraph (all near the end of the Order from the link above)

18 Other courts have noticed these problems as well. Just in the last six months, both the Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit have questioned the conduct of those employed by the Department of Justice. United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015); In re United States, No. 15-3793, 2016 WL 1105077 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016). The Fifth Circuit went further and suggested that not only was there misleading conduct, but the conduct was followed by an inadequate investigation and a cover-up. These are just two of an ever-growing number of opinions that demonstrate the lack of ethical awareness and/or compliance by some at the Department of Justice.

And further..

The Court does not have the power to disbar the counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state lawyers who act unethically in court. By a separate sealed order that it is simultaneously issuing, that is being done...The Court cannot help but hope that the new Attorney General, being a former United States Attorney, would also believe strongly that it is the duty of DOJ attorneys to act honestly in all of their dealings with a court, with opposing counsel and with the American people....

\

It's that last bit that creates the snag for men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender). In the DOJ's recent bullying of public schools to allow boys to shower with girls or face withdrawel of federal education funds, Lynch cited improperly (she's a lawyer, she knows how to read), Title IX of the education code. That is intentional misleading of the public. Nowhere in Title IX does it talk about males pretending to be females:

******* Overview Of Title IX Of The Education Amendments Of 1972, 20 U.S.C. A§ 1681 Et. Seq. | CRT | Department of Justice
On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Title IX applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq. The Title IX common rule published on August 30, 2000 covers education program providers/recipients that are funded by other federal agencies.

********
Do you see anything about males pretending to be females? Neither do I. What's worse for Lynch is that Justice Ginsburg already spoke and clarified Title IX with exact respect to segregated bathrooms (and obviously showers, locker rooms etc.) marked "women" (or "men") outside:

“Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy,” she wrote in a 1975 commentary printed by the Washington Post....“Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle,” she wrote.....The author?....Ruth Ginsburg, now on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lynch representing to the American public that Title IX covers boys-pretending-to-be-girls (transgender) is intentional deception of the Pubic.

But it gets worse. Lynch's threats to schools were more veiled,not direct. Her threats to North Carolina came with punch and promise...and a separate suit filed by her Office against NC. In the suit, it's entire hinge & premise relies on Lynch's purposefully false interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In it Lynch claims that the Act covers men-pretending-to-be-women "as a protected class". NOWHERE in the US Constitution nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act does it even remotely insinuate, much less say men-pretending-to-be-women are a "protected class".

What the DOJ is up to is using "incremental subterfuge from below". And that's going to come out in the future in a big way in other LGBT legal advances. Only Congress can create specific language to add or remove from the US Constitution. Judges are not allowed to add extra and new language to the Constitution. The purpose of the Highest Court of Appeal, the USSC, is to INTERPRET the Constitution against legal challenges from below that come before it. What the USSC in collusion with lower courts has done, is to create a Trojan Horse of ghost-writing new terms to the Constitution's 14th Amendment...each blaming the other for "the ultimate source of the findings/interpretation" (new law not written/ratified by Congress). Lynch looks to a lower court ruling in violation of the Constitution (because men-pretending-to-be-women are to be found not even remotely insinuated in the Constitution as "protected") to justify her lawsuit against North Carolina. She should know better. And in fact I argue she DOES know better. She is pushing it, and it's something the judge warned her not to do.

So, wisely, North Carolina asks Lynch in its own lawsuit to clarify what her department means by "transgenders having rights" (men-pretending-to-be-women having "rights"). Lynch now on her heels and scrambling, must HONESTLY and with ethical intent, define to the American public, and particularly North Carlolina how it is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers a behavior and not a static thing like sex or race. NC attorneys (and Lynch) knows she can't do that. Because if one odd behavior like men-pretending-to-be-women (transgenders) has protected status from the majority regulation, which other odd behaviors the majority objects to do not?

Lynch knows she's backed into a corner on the clarification issue. And now she has a court Order warning her not to deceive the public further...or else...

If I were Lynch, and wanted to keep my job, I would very meekly retract my veiled threats to public school boards across the country...and...I'd retract my lawsuit against NC. She is heading into a box canyon and there is literally no way out for her unless she very quickly retraces her steps.

Remember on the men-pretending-to-be-women (transgender) issue with bathrooms, showers etc., there's a real, actual static class protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Ginsburg subsequent statement: the 17 million women rape survivors who would be plunged into PTSD the instant they saw a man-pretending-to-be-a-woman standing naked next to them in the showers behind a door marked "women"... These people ACTUALLY DO have Constitutional protection. Men-pretending-to-be-women DO NOT.

The USSC is NOT allowed to interpret lower court rulings that mislead the Public about the actual wording of the Congress-ratified 14th Amendment. And, last time I checked, the USSC Justices are also required to be in good standing with the bar in order to continue their jobs..

TL;DR

The judge is a total wingnut and this won't stand.

Next...

What an astute observation