Well, A Judge Who Knows The Supreme Court Rulings. But Others judges...

Usually Trump’s judges ignore the Supreme Court rulings but…

Alabama Judge Allows New Title IX Rule to Move Forward in 4 States
Inside Hight Ed
By Katherine Knott
July 31, 2024

A federal judge shot down an effort Tuesday from four Southern states to immediately block the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule from taking effect, finding that Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina failed to show that they would be successful in their legal challenge.

The ruling from Judge Annemarie Carney Axon, appointed by former president Trump, paves the way for the regulations to be enforced in those four states beginning Thursday, when the rule takes effect nationwide. The states have already appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. More than 70 colleges in the four states don’t have to comply with the new regulations because of a court order in a separate case. Additionally, Florida governor Ron DeSantis told public colleges in his state earlier this year to not comply with the regulations.

[…]

“The evidentiary record is sparse, and the legal arguments are conclusory and underdeveloped,” Axon wrote.

The Republican states probably thought they had it made in the shade… a Trump judge, no problem!

Axon wrote that in order to secure an injunction, as the states requested, the plaintiffs bore the burden of showing they could prevail on the merits of their arguments. They routinely failed to meet that standard, she determined.

“In short, although plaintiffs may dislike the department’s rules, they have failed to show a substantial likelihood of success in proving the department’s rulemaking was unreasonable or not reasonably explained,” the judge wrote.

You know what? She’s right, they don’t have much of a chance in winning.

The Tampa Bay News wrote,

“The rule conflicts with many of the state plaintiffs’ laws that govern public institutions of higher education and primary and secondary education, including laws involving harassment, bathrooms, sports, parental rights and more,” the lawsuit said. “The rule thus impedes the state plaintiffs’ sovereign authority to enforce and administer their laws and creates pressure on the state plaintiffs to change their laws and practices.”

AP News wrote about other states laws and court rulings,

Appeals courts are still blocking Biden’s efforts to expand LGBTQ+ protections under Title IX
July 18, 2024

A federal appeals court in New Orleans has refused to pause a lower court order that blocks a Biden administration effort to enhance protections for LGBTQ+ students under the federal law known as Title IX.

At issue is an administration rule meant to expand the definition of sexual harassment at schools and colleges and add safeguards for victims. The new protections have been praised by civil rights advocates. Opponents say they undermine the spirit of Title IX, a 1972 law barring sex discrimination in education.

A federal judge in western Louisiana had blocked the rule, responding to a lawsuit filed by Republican state officials in Louisiana, Mississippi and Montana. The 2-1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans was dated Wednesday — the same day the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit appeals court issued a similar ruling in a Kentucky-filed lawsuit. That has so far resulted in the law being blocked in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Other states where federal judges have blocked the new rule while it is litigated include Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

It is a crap shot when it goes to court, with the judges Trump appointed who follow political ideology and not the law the states are cherry-picking their judges.

In another AP News article

Federal protections of transgender students are launching where courts haven’t blocked them
AP News
By ANDREW DEMILLO, GEOFF MULVIHILL and HANNAH SCHOENBAUM
July 31, 2024

New federal protections for transgender students at U.S. schools and colleges will take effect Thursday with muted impact because judges have temporarily blocked enforcement in 21 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country.

The regulation also adds protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and details how schools must respond to sexual misconduct complaints.

For schools, the impact of the court challenges could be a combination of confusion and inertia in terms of compliance as the academic year begins.

“I think it is likely that school district-to-school district or state-to-state, we’re going to see more or less a continuation of the current status quo,” said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

The rulings are all over the place depending upon the judges and with the broad range of rulings you know that this is going to the Supreme Court!

A new Supreme Court case threatens to gut the Court’s one good trans rights decision
Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch surprised most Court watchers by supporting trans rights in Bostock v. Clayton County. We’re about to find out if he actually meant it.
Vox
By Ian Millhiser
July 26, 2024

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) was one of the few pleasant surprises for liberals to come out of the Supreme Court during the Trump administration.

Authored by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch and joined by Republican Chief Justice John Roberts, Bostock held that a decades-old federal civil rights law prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s also written using such expansive language that it leaves little doubt that discrimination against LGBTQ people is forbidden in many other contexts, including health care and education.

Nevertheless, two separate appeals court panels — both of them dominated by Republican judges — recently suggested that Bostock has nothing to say about discrimination by educational institutions like public schools and universities.

One opinion, by the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, simply ignored Bostock altogether, as though it didn’t exist. Another opinion, joined by two Republicans on the Sixth Circuit, spent just two paragraphs trying to explain why the plain language of Bostock does not apply to schools.

It is like I’ve been saying, the Republicans ignore court rulings that they don’t like. They only follower the ruling that matches their party dogma.

As for not applying to schools, the whole case was about trans students using bathrooms, like I said they have blinders on when it comes court precedent.

The red-state plaintiffs in Louisiana and Tennessee do not challenge any of the new rules that do not touch on transgender rights. And yet the lower courts struck down the Title IX regulations in their entirety. That alone is an error warranting intervention by the Supreme Court. As the Court held in Gill v. Whitford (2018), when a court finds a legal violation, the “remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.”

The Republicans hate Title VII and Title IX, Pew Research reported that,

Fifty years after the passage of Title IX, which prohibits high schools and colleges that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex, most Americans who have heard about the law say it’s had a positive impact on gender equality in the United States (63%). Still, 37% of those who are familiar with Title IX say it has not gone far enough in increasing opportunities for women and girls to participate in sports, according to a February Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults.

[…]

Partisan gaps are also pronounced when it comes to views of funding for college sports. Democrats (69%) are more likely than Republicans (51%) to say men’s and women’s college sports should get about equal funding, while Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say funding should be based on the amount of money brought in by the team (31% vs. 15%).

The gender gap persists in both parties, though it is particularly wide among Republicans. About two-thirds of Republican women (65%) say funding should be about equal regardless of gender, compared with 37% of Republican men. Republican men, in turn, are about twice as likely as Republican women to say funding should be based on the amount of money brought in by the teams (42% vs. 20%). Among Democrats, majorities of men (61%) and women (75%) say funding should be about equal.

The Republicans have been touting their non-discrimination bill… Fairness for All Act while the Democrats have the Equality Act. You remember the Heritage Foundation? Project 2025, well they have thoughts about these bills and surprisingly they don’t like either, the Fairness for All Act nor Equality Act.

Fairness for All Act’s Message to Religious Americans: “Submit or Else”
By Sarah Parshall Perry
April 28, 2021

America’s greatness rests on its long-standing adherence to the enduring principles its Founders wisely memorialized for future generations. The very first of these was religious liberty—a concept that goes to the very core of who we are as free-thinking, self-determined individuals.

The so-called Equality Act, which would make 59 substantive changes to federal law, would completely undermine this liberty.

After passing the House in February, the act is currently languishing in the Senate, and faces the not-impossible chance of a 50-50 tie vote broken by the Democratic White House. In an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging on an unprecedented power grab by Democrats, some have proffered the Fairness for All Act as the Equality Act’s kinder, “gentler” alternative.

Of course they don’t like the the Equality Act it makes it illegal to discriminate… they believe that they have a legal right to discriminate against people who are not like them.

Fairness for All does not ensure fairness. Instead, it grants special privileges and imposes a unitary, politically correct, legally enforceable set of beliefs about sexuality and gender on all private actors: something the Supreme Court has patently refused to do.

And if you think the left will be satisfied with this misguided bill, think again. The ACLU has said Fairness for All “doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ people.” They’ve been joined by the Human Rights Campaign (the country’s biggest LGBTQ+ civil rights group), LAMBDA Legal, and the gay advocacy group GLAAD in proclaiming that the bill “licenses discrimination.”

The “compromise” that is Fairness for All is even viewed by the left as an insufficient attempt to protect their interests. It is all or nothing. As it always was.

You see the Republicans think that by saying you cannot discriminate against that we are getting "specials rights" They should talk "It is all or nothing. As it always was." they are the one voting any legislation that has anything LGBTQ+ in the bill.

---

'Kamabla'? Trump isn't just losing the election, he's losing his mind.

Republicans can't land on a message to counter Democrats' momentum with Harris and Walz, so they resort to lazy jokes and racism.

By Rex Huppke

USA TODAY

August 8, 2024

Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris is barnstorming swing states with her new running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, looking downright joyous and sharing a positive message with massive crowds of supporters.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is doing none of those things. He has one campaign rally scheduled for this week, in deep-red Montana, and seems otherwise preoccupied with posting unhinged rants on social media and trying to get the vaguely racist-sounding nickname “Kamabla” to take off.

There’s a long way to go in this election, and much can and will happen. But right now, weeks after a Republican National Convention brimming with confidence, Trump, GOP lawmakers and right-wing pundits are all on their heels, seemingly incapable of pushing back against a Harris-Walz Democratic ticket.

[...]

 Trump’s other-izing of Harris will continue apace, I’m sure, but his racist comment that she "happened to turn Black" was met with offense, ridicule and even exasperation among Republicans.

So Trump came up with “Kamabla.” Is that some combination of “Kamala” and “Black,” is it making fun of her name, is it just weird-old-man humor? Perhaps he's using the same lizard-brain thinking that went into the name-slurs he hurled against Nikki Haley in the Republican primary, twisting her given name Nimarata into “Nimrada” and “Nimbra.”

And I think that it is a play on the word "Kumbaya."

While workshopping stupid nicknames, Trump has been taking time to write rants like this one, posted Tuesday:

“What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the history of the U.S., whose Presidency was Unconstitutionally STOLEN from him by Kamabla, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Shifty Adam Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, and others on the Lunatic Left, CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE. He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the U.S. Presidency, a COUP, to the people in the World he most hates, and he wants it back, NOW!!!”

I think Trump is running scared... JD is in deep trouble with hat he all has been saying about "childless cat ladies, and accusing Walz's of "stolen valor" and claiming that Walz never served in a combat zone. I think that it is stupid to go after Walz service record it is going bite him in the a** because JD is running with who some call a draft dodger... "Mr. Bone Spurs" himself.