Home | About | Donate

US Supreme Court Punts on Transgender Rights, Sending Case Back to Lower Court


US Supreme Court Punts on Transgender Rights, Sending Case Back to Lower Court

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

This post may be updated.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday punted on transgender rights, sending a critical case involving bathroom access at a Virginia high school back to a lower court.


Yeah. I would not call this punting, but caving to political winds. The meaning of Title IX has not changed, and there's no reason they couldn't rule on that. Hearing the school authorities' appeal of the Appeals Court's finding did not depend on the changed Justice Dept. Shameful!


If I understand the GOP argument, they want this boy to use the girls restroom. Huh?


Yep, with the Texas wrestler. Until they get penises, the men are just fine with calling them girls.


I see this stemming from the long term problem of judges being allowed to reinterpret laws. First, this person is a United States citizen which clearly being overlooked. Until that fact is taken into consideration, the idea of the blatant discrimination against our fellow citizens could he decided on. Then, citizens would get the rights that they already have.


Isn't that their job?


No its not. This is a very old issue. They are to interpret, not reinterpret. Scalia and his predecessors have reinterpreted law for decades leaving minorities in the dust. An example of reinterpreting is equality. The constitution was pretty damn clear about it, but it wasn't until 1964 and the help of National Guardsmen to come about. Segregation is a reinterpretation of equality, as in "sepereate but equal". Obviously there was a problem. We are either equal and together, or we are not. Someone had to reinterpret to get to the conclusion that equality meant something other than the dictionary definition.


The term girl is common place in the South. It is used as a way to put someone on the outside of the "good ole boys club". Its the same as a white dude calling an African American "boy", something i was forced to hear during my time there.


I still don't understand what your complaint is relative to the current topic. It's not the judges reinterpreting the law (Title IX), but the incoming political-appointee Justice Dept. The Supremes are not supervised by Sessions.

And though I'm a lifelong Northerner, I know a thing or two about "girl" being used to invalidate one's authority or citizenship. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be stated.


Ok, so the best way i can put this is: In our courts, there is a procedure. Everything that goes on is determined by how things play out. An example is that an accusation is made by the DA. Then, the person being accused,or defendant, has the right to go with or against the accusation. If with, then that is saying "guilty". If against, then that is saying "innocent". The point is that it is all based off of procedure. In the case of the young person and their sexual orientation, the procedure would go like this: 1st, are they a citizen? If so, then they have rights under our Constitution. 2nd, what argument is being presented? 3rd, what laws does the argument need to find resolution? 4th, decide resolution. In this case of sexual identity, the Constitution is unclear, therefore there is need of an interpretation of rights of that citizen. Then there wpuld need to a resolution found. In this case the resolution was not found and kicked back to the lower courts. Now the procedure starts over. Basically the SCOTUS chose not to either interpret or reinterpret the rights of the individual, which is where the issue of interpreting vs reinterpreting comes up. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/31/americans-divided-on-how-the-supreme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/. This link is an example of what the issue brings out. Judges know these issues rather well, so when I see SCOTUS do what it did, the first thing i ask myself is, " What are the political affiliations of each judge?," as in who put them there. Then, "Is this judge religious, and to what extent?" Its convoluted without doubt and usually ends up along party lines. My ultimate point would be that noone is going to give this young person their human right of choice, skipping over the idea of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and therefore making this equal citizen second class, by taking equality away from them.


I can't wade through your criminal example. This is not about a criminal case, but the application of a law whose constitutionality is not being challenged. Please talk about the case in hand or stop talking.


The example is about procedure. Its an example showing how our courts work. And ot has everything to do with the case at hand. Im pointing out that some of the procedure is being skipped, which usually means there is a bias. And this situation means a hell of a lot to me. My girlfriend is bisexual putting her in the GLBTQ community. And from personal experience, someone that is transgender has a very tough life in this country. My heart goes out to them as much as anyone in the community. And it's a little insulting that you would be so callous to suggest that im some fucking asshole that has only tried to be compassionate towards you and try to explain some things you may not fully understand. I served this country and am part of the Gay/Straight Alliance. So, if you dont like what i say, its you that needs to stop talking, because i have the right to free speech in this country. If you want to take that away, get out!


It's a lot insulting that you

as if I'm some kind of idiot or ill-informed. And btw, we're talking about my child here, who didn't have a word for it when they were Gavin Grimm's age, but who still goes around, in a trans-protective state and city, in significant fear of suffering violence at the hands of some asshole who takes offense at the transition that's saved my child's life. So don't lecture me about "served my country" or other irrelevancies. You've now awakened the mama bear, and you've been warned.


Scotus Blog posting on the case


Thanks. So this blogger's assumption is more complicated than the SCOTUS ruling. Not exactly revelatory, but an insight.


I know who were talking about, and the venom you spew is unacceptable. Dont respond until you get some manners.


Huh? Who needs to get some manners? The one talking about his bisexual girlfriend or the mother of a kid who survived trans teen closet and adult self-destructiveness? (And I know a few others too.)


Got get that last pot shot in don't ya. Bet you were waiting. Why waste your life being angry, fighting people on your side. You remind me of one of my Privates, fighting everyone around you, except the enemy. When you realize that your not the only one on this planet, life will get a lot easier, I promise. Please be respectful and stop responding to me.