VICTORY! Federal court blocks Obama’s transgender bathroom order

[Rustic]

Judge in Texas temporarily blocks Obama's transgender rules for schools
Odd you left the most important part out.

Well it will keep kids from getting raped in bathrooms for a while

 

[BluesLegend]

The self claimed constitutional law professor loses another case, no wonder the guy never practiced law.

A temporary blockage is not a loss.
But you keep grasping at straws.

Get a grip on reality lib, how many times has the court knocked this clown down now dozens?

More rationalizing!

By all means list his successful legal arguments that should take about 15 seconds

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The self claimed constitutional law professor loses another case, no wonder the guy never practiced law.

and the president, who indeed is a constitutional law professor, and unlike you knows what he's talking about, was reversed by a GOP trial level hack in Texas. Good luck when it gets to the appellate courts.

it would be so lovely if wingers understood these things. then we wouldn't have idiotic threads like this.

He's not a law professor fool, he's not even qualified to be an associate professor he doesn't have the credentials. Next you Obama ass kissers will claim he's an astronaut.

what credentials, idiota, do you think one needs to be a law professor?

he graduated from law school, was editor of the Harvard law review. you don't need anything else, idiota.

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

 

[Silhouette]

only temporarily dear. when the appellate judges get it, they'll laugh at him. just like they laughed at the lower obergefell courts.

Justice Ginsburg is an appellate judge. You might want to inform yourself where she stands on the issue, considering her influence on the left side of the Court..lol.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”...The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Unlike children who were permanently divorced from either a mother or father for life as result of Obergefell's Ruling, a Hearing they were not invited to, nor had representation at, even though they are implicit anticipated parties to any marriage contract, the 17 million women rape survivors are going to have a say in the eventual "Deranged men vs the State of (fill in the blank)" bathroom (showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. etc.) case at the USSC level. Justice Ginsburg will insist they have representation.

This one, dear Jillian, is not going to be your pocket-Justice slam dunk. Prepare yourself mentally because it's coming. The issues of legally forcing a rape survivor to endure a man disrobing next to her in the communal shower room, locker room, etc. and the PTSD it would absolutely befall her, are going to be the final determining factors on the deranged-male 'access to women's rooms' case.

 

[bodecea]

Judge in Texas temporarily blocks Obama's transgender rules for schools
Odd you left the most important part out.

Well it will keep kids from getting raped in bathrooms for a while

Oh...it protects them from straight men?

 

[jillian]

and the president, who indeed is a constitutional law professor, and unlike you knows what he's talking about, was reversed by a GOP trial level hack in Texas. Good luck when it gets to the appellate courts.

it would be so lovely if wingers understood these things. then we wouldn't have idiotic threads like this.

He's not a law professor fool, he's not even qualified to be an associate professor he doesn't have the credentials. Next you Obama ass kissers will claim he's an astronaut.

what credentials, idiota, do you think one needs to be a law professor?

he graduated from law school, was editor of the Harvard law review. you don't need anything else, idiota.

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

that said, I give you credit for at least trying to come forward with a response, which blues idiot wasn't capable of doing.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

by the by....even in those instances in which the court thought the president overstepped, it's their job to say no, not the president's.

you'd know that if you understood the balance of power in this country and how checks and balances work.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He's not a law professor fool, he's not even qualified to be an associate professor he doesn't have the credentials. Next you Obama ass kissers will claim he's an astronaut.

what credentials, idiota, do you think one needs to be a law professor?

he graduated from law school, was editor of the Harvard law review. you don't need anything else, idiota.

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

 

[daws101]

Judge in Texas temporarily blocks Obama's transgender rules for schools
Odd you left the most important part out.

Well it will keep kids from getting raped in bathrooms for a while

There is no evidence that transgender people have raped anyone.
That is one of your favorite fantasies though.

 

[BluesLegend]

The self claimed constitutional law professor loses another case, no wonder the guy never practiced law.

and the president, who indeed is a constitutional law professor, and unlike you knows what he's talking about, was reversed by a GOP trial level hack in Texas. Good luck when it gets to the appellate courts.

it would be so lovely if wingers understood these things. then we wouldn't have idiotic threads like this.

He's not a law professor fool, he's not even qualified to be an associate professor he doesn't have the credentials. Next you Obama ass kissers will claim he's an astronaut.

what credentials, idiota, do you think one needs to be a law professor?

he graduated from law school, was editor of the Harvard law review. you don't need anything else, idiota.

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

Dummy he was a 'lecturer' that's not my title it was his title bestowed by the law school he lectured at. Why don't you go argue with them, good luck with that.

 

[jillian]

Judge in Texas temporarily blocks Obama's transgender rules for schools
Odd you left the most important part out.

Well it will keep kids from getting raped in bathrooms for a while

when has a transwoman ever raped a girl in the woman's restroom?

we'll wait

 

[daws101]

The self claimed constitutional law professor loses another case, no wonder the guy never practiced law.

A temporary blockage is not a loss.
But you keep grasping at straws.

Get a grip on reality lib, how many times has the court knocked this clown down now dozens?

More rationalizing!

By all means list his successful legal arguments that should take about 15 seconds

Still more rationalizing.

 

[jillian]

what credentials, idiota, do you think one needs to be a law professor?

he graduated from law school, was editor of the Harvard law review. you don't need anything else, idiota.

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

chimp in chief?

this conversation is done.

I don't bother trying to educate bigoted pieces of garbage who call themselves Christians.

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

 

[BluesLegend]

The self claimed constitutional law professor loses another case, no wonder the guy never practiced law.

A temporary blockage is not a loss.
But you keep grasping at straws.

Get a grip on reality lib, how many times has the court knocked this clown down now dozens?

More rationalizing!

By all means list his successful legal arguments that should take about 15 seconds

Still more rationalizing.

Maybe you need a 5 hour energy your posts seem lacking in well thought.

 

[Silhouette]

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Jillian, maybe you could teach a pig to read and to think instead? Like you might want to do with the post below vv Your thoughts on what Justice Ginsburg said about males using women's facilities? "Emphatically not..". ?

************

only temporarily dear. when the appellate judges get it, they'll laugh at him. just like they laughed at the lower obergefell courts.

Justice Ginsburg is an appellate judge. You might want to inform yourself where she stands on the issue, considering her influence on the left side of the Court..lol.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”...The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Unlike children who were permanently divorced from either a mother or father for life as result of Obergefell's Ruling, a Hearing they were not invited to, nor had representation at, even though they are implicit anticipated parties to any marriage contract, the 17 million women rape survivors are going to have a say in the eventual "Deranged men vs the State of (fill in the blank)" bathroom (showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. etc.) case at the USSC level. Justice Ginsburg will insist they have representation.

This one, dear Jillian, is not going to be your pocket-Justice slam dunk. Prepare yourself mentally because it's coming. The issues of legally forcing a rape survivor to endure a man disrobing next to her in the communal shower room, locker room, etc. and the PTSD it would absolutely befall her, are going to be the final determining factors on the deranged-male 'access to women's rooms' case.

 

[daws101]

A temporary blockage is not a loss.
But you keep grasping at straws.

Get a grip on reality lib, how many times has the court knocked this clown down now dozens?

More rationalizing!

By all means list his successful legal arguments that should take about 15 seconds

Still more rationalizing.

Maybe you need a 5 hour energy your posts seem lacking in well thought.

Really ? What the fuck is well thought?
If anyone's brain is misfiring it yours

 

[daws101]

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Jillian, maybe you could teach a pig to read and to think instead? Like you might want to do with the post below vv

************

only temporarily dear. when the appellate judges get it, they'll laugh at him. just like they laughed at the lower obergefell courts.

Justice Ginsburg is an appellate judge. You might want to inform yourself where she stands on the issue, considering her influence on the left side of the Court..lol.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”...The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Unlike children who were permanently divorced from either a mother or father for life as result of Obergefell's Ruling, a Hearing they were not invited to, nor had representation at, even though they are implicit anticipated parties to any marriage contract, the 17 million women rape survivors are going to have a say in the eventual "Deranged men vs the State of (fill in the blank)" bathroom (showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. etc.) case at the USSC level. Justice Ginsburg will insist they have representation.

This one, dear Jillian, is not going to be your pocket-Justice slam dunk. Prepare yourself mentally because it's coming. The issues of legally forcing a rape survivor to endure a man disrobing next to her in the communal shower room, locker room, etc. and the PTSD it would absolutely befall her, are going to be the final determining factors on the deranged-male 'access to women's rooms' case.

for sill this thread is like feeding smack to a herion addict.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That doesn't qualify him to be a law professor idiot, god can one of you libs help this moron out. /eyeroll

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

chimp in chief?

this conversation is done.

I don't bother trying to educate bigoted pieces of garbage who call themselves Christians.

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Terms like that I use to get self righteous leftist bigots to flame out of the conversation, giving me the victory. It's always gratifying to see it work.

 

[daws101]

again, since you don't know what you're talking about on this or any other subject, what more do you think he needs to be a constitutional law professor?

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

chimp in chief?

this conversation is done.

I don't bother trying to educate bigoted pieces of garbage who call themselves Christians.

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Terms like that I use to get self righteous leftist bigots to flame out of the conversation, giving me the victory. It's always gratifying to see it work.

Translation : I bullshit myself alot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

An understanding of the Constitution and how it limits the power of his office.

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

chimp in chief?

this conversation is done.

I don't bother trying to educate bigoted pieces of garbage who call themselves Christians.

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Terms like that I use to get self righteous leftist bigots to flame out of the conversation, giving me the victory. It's always gratifying to see it work.

Translation : I bullshit myself alot.

Still waiting for your fatal flaw.

 

[daws101]

you're very funny. you have absolutely no basis for either thinking you're correct about the power of his office and you have no business thinking that the editor of Harvard law review knows less about the constitution than you do. seriously.

now.... here's what doesn't limit the power of his office.... the color of his skin. which is really what the rightwingnuts have been shrieking about for the past eight years

Funny is you not realizing that as of now, the chimp in chief cannot implement his unconstitutional decrees. He's getting the education that he never got in college, smoking crack enthusiastically.

chimp in chief?

this conversation is done.

I don't bother trying to educate bigoted pieces of garbage who call themselves Christians.

as my husband always says....it's like trying to teach a pig to talk....it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Terms like that I use to get self righteous leftist bigots to flame out of the conversation, giving me the victory. It's always gratifying to see it work.

Translation : I bullshit myself alot.

Still waiting for your fatal flaw.

I have none you could exploit.
I'll be pissing on your tombstone before you'll ever understand.