Parental Challenge To School Trans Policy In Maryland Rejected by Supreme Court

In what can be said to be a sad day for parents rights the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge from parents regarding a Maryland school district’s official policy regarding transgender students. A group sued the school after officials there implemented a policy that supported the gender transition of students without notifying parents. The case, John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, focused on whether the parents had the proper standing to file the lawsuit. In August, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that three parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, did not have standing to challenge the policy. The parents argued that the district’s 2020–21 gender identity policy allowed for withholding information about a child’s preferred pronouns and gender identity from parents. 

The 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied the parents standing because they did “not allege that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity.” Gene Hamilton, executive director of America First Legal, which submitted an amicus brief in the case urging the Supreme Court to hear it, criticized federal judges for their handling of cases involving questions of standing, stating that they are “abjectly failing.” According to “Federal judges across the United States are abjectly failing to do precisely what they should do: declare what the law is and adjudicate cases and controversies between specific parties with specific claims,” Hamilton told Fox News Digital.

“An overwhelming number of federal judges are hiding behind false understandings of ‘standing’ and the role of federal courts as properly understood by the founders,” he said. “Until that changes, sadly, we are going to see more righteous cases dismissed by judges who lack the courage to do their fundamental duty.” In August 2022, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, appointed by President Obama and serving in the District of Maryland, initially ruled against the parents. “The Guidelines carefully balance the interests of both the parents and students, encouraging parental input when the student consents, but avoiding it when the student expresses concern that parents would not be supportive, or that disclosing their gender identity to their parents may put them in harm’s way,” Grimm wrote.

In August, a three-judge panel on the 4th Circuit upheld the lower court ruling, with Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee, writing the 2-1 opinion. Quattlebaum wrote that while objections to the school’s policy might “be quite persuasive,” the parents failed to “allege any injury to themselves.” “Policy disagreements should be addressed to elected policymakers at the ballot box, not to unelected judges in the courthouse,” Quattlebaum said, Fox News reported. Kayla Toney, counsel at First Liberty Institute also filed an amicus brief in the case, saying, “Parental rights are under attack across the nation, and policies that keep gender transitions secret from parents are especially harmful to parents from many different faith backgrounds.” Following with “That is why we are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in this case, and we will continue to advocate for religious parents,” she said.

When authorities seize cars and other property used in drug crimes, even when the property belongs to so-called innocent owners, they are not required to hold a prompt hearing, a divided US. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month. The justices voted 6-3 to reject the claims of two Alabama women who had to wait more than a year for the return of their cars. Police confiscated the vehicles after pulling over others who were driving them and discovering illegal drugs, the Associated Press reported. 

Civil forfeiture allows authorities to confiscate property without proving it was used in illegal activities. Critics describe the practice as “legalized theft.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent for the liberal members of the court that since police departments frequently have a financial incentive to retain the property, civil forfeiture is “vulnerable to abuse.”

Time to vote on it on election get it on the ballot and move it out from there or let Trump get into office and he can take this on by Executive action or some other sort of means but the schools should never tell kids they can and should transition without notifying parents and to do it is both disgraceful and disgusting. NOT To mention has potential for long term damage to the kids since we know now that a majority of these people who transition regret it later in life.

Investigation Underway! Who's the Supreme Justice Flusher?

But while The Flush may have been Roberts’ worst nightmare, it was a dream come true for many like myself listening! This one moment of true justice going down the toilet for all to hear brought me to tears when I first heard it, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard the sound coming from a place where laws are being discussed but never did I think I’d hear it brought like this by supream judges. Hilarious, and with it this brings a true who done it mystery & intrigue, and now while I think it is ok to discount Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she had joined the call from a hospital bed and would have likely had a difficult time moving around but who knows maybe she started the “session” on a private “session.” What’s more, during Ginsburg’s time to speak, there was a distinct whirring in the background that was simply not present during the flush in question. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly had issues with being muted too often, and someone that conscious of keeping her sound off seemed unlikely to overlook the feature during a midargument bathroom break. Similarly, during Wednesday’s first set of arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas was briefly skipped for also not taking himself off mute. So he, too, seems more guarded than careless.

[fvplayer id=”60″]

Appearing directly before Justice Elena Kagan’s turn at questioning, though, was Justice Stephen Breyer. At 81, he is the second-oldest justice, after Ginsburg, and the audio evidence points toward him as the likely flusher. Now I played through the rest of the audio, trying to find out exactly when this stray mic might have first turned on—and, in the process, I discovered Breyer having a very suggestive degree of technical difficulties. We should begin by saying that this wouldn’t be Breyer’s first phone-related disruption. In 2017, for instance, Breyer committed a major faux pas when his phone went off in the middle of a public hearing, despite phones being forbidden in courtrooms. At the time, a spokeswoman called it an “oversight.” And Wednesday, at precisely 12:29 p.m. during the same oral arguments that would soon give us the flush, Roberts repeatedly called on Breyer to begin his questions, only to be met with silence. This was not a case, as with his colleagues, of overuse of the mute button. Two more justices took their turns before Breyer finally appeared, at which point he informed listeners: “The telephone started to ring, and it cut me off the call. And I don’t think it was a robocall, and we got it straightened out.”

Breyer also seems to have established a willingness to multitask during arguments.

When Breyer unmuted at 11:57 a.m. to indicate that he had finished questioning Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, he was accompanied by an audible clinking of what sounded very much like dishes. If that was indeed the sound of Breyer finishing his lunch (the clattering has the unmistakable tone of someone discarding silverware onto an empty plate), it would mean that he had been more than happy to eat and engage in oral arguments simultaneously. The presumptive meal also prompts its own line of speculation. If the flush belonged to Breyer, a bowel movement would have come roughly 43 minutes after the justice’s meal. This seems feasible. The process of eating encourages a natural physiological response known as “the gastrocolic reflex,” which essentially works to get your colon fired up. That is to say, a little lunch might certainly get things moving along. And while little has been written about Stephen Breyer’s diet, we do know that, during his time on the Supreme Court cafeteria committee, Breyer’s two main accomplishments were a salad bar expansion and the addition of Starbucks coffee—both of which are prime poop facilitators.

[fvplayer id=”58″]

More than anything, though, the clattering of dishes from Breyer’s end signals that this is a man who’s not afraid to do more than one thing at a time during tele-court. If he’s willing to dine during his own turn, there’s no telling what sorts of tasks he might be willing to engage in during his colleagues’ turns. Which brings us to the act itself. While delighted listeners have focused almost exclusively on the flush, upon closer listening, one finds that it’s actually just one part in a symphony of familiar sounds. There’s the groan of a chair as someone seems to rise, the light clang of a toilet lid lifting to meet the tank (or possibly a seat being lowered), the shuffling of a body, and, finally, the distinct plop of a solid mass as it hits liquid. All of it beautiful in its own way. While I feel confident in my identification of the noises in the majority of the clip, I’m hesitant to say definitively that what sounds like a woman calling out “justice” near the end is indeed that. It could very well be an aide attempting to alert Breyer to what had happened, or it could simply be a false start by Kagan. Either way, the deed had already been done. Though the entire performance happened during Kagan’s questioning, it came right after Breyer had finished his own turn. This alone would cast suspicion on Breyer, but what’s particularly damaging is how Breyer concludes—or rather, doesn’t. Listen carefully to what happens to the background noise as Thomas and Sotomayor ask their last questions at other points in the day, and then to Breyer’s final words before Kagan takes over.

[fvplayer id=”59″]

When Thomas and Sotomayor each finish, there’s a brief but distinct loss of ambient sound, presumably marking the moment the justices mute their lines. The end of Breyer’s turn, however, contains no such loss. You can even see it in the audio visualization. In other words, it seems safe to conclude that Breyer never actually muted his line. This, combined with everything else we’ve learned, offers a persuasive account of where the sounds originated.

Check out the video with the audio on it of said flush below…

[fvplayer id=”57″]

[fvplayer id=”61″]