In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily struck down the Biden Administration’s attempt to effectively nullify Title IX by redefining sex according to “gender identity”.
Sharing this with acquaintances whom I know think Kamal is good for America. This here, what you state so concisely is a factual destruction of everything these losers stand for and will make the difference to them. Thank you again Sarah God bless you always and be in radiant good health
The fact that it was decided by a 5 to 4 vote is very telling. For a case like this the vote should have been unanimous.
This case goes far beyond mete sex and gender. It's all about deciding if the executive branch of government can legislate from the executive office. If they can rewrite this law then there is no law out of reach that can be rewritten.
What you have said is 100% true and I hope this perversion has come to an end on your country.
In the UK the labour Party can not even define what a woman is when asked.
As with any Common Law country legal documents when the term man is written it also means woman and quite often states this at the first sentence. It does Not make any reference to any other genda, only junior version of man and women.
I find it deeply troubling that 4 judges voted as they did. I hope this proves your government is the enemy in this war your nation that you have to fight and as far as I am concerned both parties are two wings on the same bird and owe their allegiance to ZIONISTS Israel.
They are Machiavellian menaces and might makes right. Redefining words in existing documents to obscure and pervert intent for harm is to be expected by those who dissect small people because they are big people and can.
Expecting any permanence of just rights or other necessary elements of a free society in light of this menace is an optimism to which I find no means of subscribing.
Interestingly, I think one of the most telling things about the 5-4 ruling, and I graduated from law school and was raised Catholic, is that "conservative" Neil Gorsuch voted with the "liberals." Gorsuch, who I heard speak at the Reagan Library several years ago, represents that strand of valueless libertarian justice, the type that were hoisted on Trump to appoint, that votes "conservative" often only in, mostly, business, labor, and regulatory matters, although we do live in a much too regulated world. Amy Coney Barrett, who while she voted with the majority here but only really from a procedural posture, is a justice I knew would disappoint, as I labeled her in several instances "A do-gooder Catholic with somewhat conservative tendencies." I find Barrett especially interesting in that she at least outwardly appeared to have the most religiously pious background, but the reality is that the last several terms have shown she will continue to drift "left" until she may not be often indistinguishable from the clearly left side of the court. In fact, apparently she did not even want to hear Dobbs but got boxed in.
Sarah, you used the word “temporarily.” Would you clarify?
Once again great writing on a very important deceptive method the enemy uses to change our laws de facto by using “ words of art” defined in the regulation itself. No where else. Thank you for exposing this.
Sharing this with acquaintances whom I know think Kamal is good for America. This here, what you state so concisely is a factual destruction of everything these losers stand for and will make the difference to them. Thank you again Sarah God bless you always and be in radiant good health
I like the short semi-humorous tweak at the end of the article.
The fact that it was decided by a 5 to 4 vote is very telling. For a case like this the vote should have been unanimous.
This case goes far beyond mete sex and gender. It's all about deciding if the executive branch of government can legislate from the executive office. If they can rewrite this law then there is no law out of reach that can be rewritten.
What you have said is 100% true and I hope this perversion has come to an end on your country.
In the UK the labour Party can not even define what a woman is when asked.
As with any Common Law country legal documents when the term man is written it also means woman and quite often states this at the first sentence. It does Not make any reference to any other genda, only junior version of man and women.
I find it deeply troubling that 4 judges voted as they did. I hope this proves your government is the enemy in this war your nation that you have to fight and as far as I am concerned both parties are two wings on the same bird and owe their allegiance to ZIONISTS Israel.
They are Machiavellian menaces and might makes right. Redefining words in existing documents to obscure and pervert intent for harm is to be expected by those who dissect small people because they are big people and can.
Expecting any permanence of just rights or other necessary elements of a free society in light of this menace is an optimism to which I find no means of subscribing.
Interestingly, I think one of the most telling things about the 5-4 ruling, and I graduated from law school and was raised Catholic, is that "conservative" Neil Gorsuch voted with the "liberals." Gorsuch, who I heard speak at the Reagan Library several years ago, represents that strand of valueless libertarian justice, the type that were hoisted on Trump to appoint, that votes "conservative" often only in, mostly, business, labor, and regulatory matters, although we do live in a much too regulated world. Amy Coney Barrett, who while she voted with the majority here but only really from a procedural posture, is a justice I knew would disappoint, as I labeled her in several instances "A do-gooder Catholic with somewhat conservative tendencies." I find Barrett especially interesting in that she at least outwardly appeared to have the most religiously pious background, but the reality is that the last several terms have shown she will continue to drift "left" until she may not be often indistinguishable from the clearly left side of the court. In fact, apparently she did not even want to hear Dobbs but got boxed in.
Sarah, you used the word “temporarily.” Would you clarify?
Once again great writing on a very important deceptive method the enemy uses to change our laws de facto by using “ words of art” defined in the regulation itself. No where else. Thank you for exposing this.
The first example of this that I remember was when lake Champlain was defined as a Great Lake.