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.

Supreme Court denied Jack Smith’s motion vs Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday denied Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the review of the question of whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving interference with the 2020 presidential election. The federal 2020 election trial may go beyond its currently planned start date of March 4 as a result of the high court’s decision. Earlier this month, Smith requested that the Supreme Court decided swiftly whether Donald Trump who is the Republican presidential frontrunner is totally immune from prosecution for so called crimes committed during his presidency.

This assertion has been pivotal to the defense strategy of Trump’s legal team. Following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of arguments claiming immunity from the indictment, it sought a stay on proceedings. The appeal is currently pending, so the case’s proceedings have come to a halt. Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.

Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.” The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted. Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power.



Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.” The Congress had previously enacted legislation to grant authorization for a comparable role known as “independent counsel.” However, this statute lapsed in 1999. The lawyers claim that Garland is unable to assign a subordinate to perform tasks that Congress has not approved. Only an individual with the title of “officer” possesses the requisite level of authority.

While establishing the Department of Justice, Congress granted it specific powers through legislation. However, it did not authorize any office with the same level of authority as a U.S. Attorney, which Garland has bestowed upon Smith. The amicus brief further argues, “Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize the appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. Attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an ‘office.’” They contend that even if Congress authorized special counsels, anyone holding such authority would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Additionally, the brief contended that Smith’s authority is comparable to that of a U.S. attorney, as he is a “principal officer” according to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This means that confirmation by a majority of the U.S. Senate is mandatory following his nomination by the president. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they write. While the primary focus of these briefs is to argue against the Supreme Court granting Smith’s petition to transfer the case to the high court, their reasoning would require lower federal courts to dismiss Smith’s entire portfolio of prosecutions, including all pending charges against Trump.

During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Meese served as Attorney General. Congress’s approval of independent counsel played a significant role during this time. Alina Habba, an attorney representing former President Donald Trump’s Save America PAC, is slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith for moving quickly to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider the federal criminal case involving the 2020 election and Trump’s immunity defense. The indictment accuses Trump of participating in criminal conspiracies to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has sought to dismiss the charges by claiming that he has presidential immunity.

Smith has raised the matter with the nation’s top court, stating that it should be addressed before the D.C. Circuit’s decision and referencing the upcoming March 4 trial date for Trump. With the Supreme Court’s approval, Trump is now required to reply by December 20. After that, they will determine whether or not to accept the case. “There is some sort of real sense of urgency,” Habba said in an interview. “The only urgency that I can see is that there is an election in November 2024, and they can’t beat him.”

Habba said “everyone can see” what Smith is doing and said it “is election interference at its finest.” “They can’t beat him in the ballots, so they’re going to have to either, you know, lie, cheat, steal, or the newest, law fare, put him in jail, and tie him up,” she told Fox Business Network’s Larry Kudlow. Kudlow suggested that since Trump would have to sit in trial every day for the case, they don’t want him on the campaign trail.

Habba agreed and said, “It’s playing against them.” “He’s getting a lot of voters that he normally wouldn’t get because they’re seeing this and he is the victim of, all of a sudden, they’ve made him a victim of complete and utter election interference and law fare,” she said. Habba said she has faith in the Supreme Court because they “really take their office seriously, and we’ve seen that time and time again with that, especially recently.”

The Supreme Court wiped away a lower court Twitter lawsuit!

The Supreme Court on Monday finally did something right! After months of failing to uphold the law when asked they wiped away a lower court opinion holding that then President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked followers from his Twitter account.The high court dismissed the case because POTUS45 is not in office anymore so there isn’t a live case or controversy, and just because it’s down right stupid to call on a lawsuit against someone for blocking you on Twitter. Had this bogus lawsuit gone in think about all the other lawsuits which would follow? I was blocked by Paul Feig of the Ghostbusters remake would I be able to sue him?

Trump established his Twitter account in 2009, and in May and June of 2017, while serving as President, he blocked seven crybabies who had expressed displeasure with him. Lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued on behalf of the cry babies, arguing Trump’s action violated their First Amendment rights. They clearly don’t know the First Amendment or their rights.

In court papers, they said the President’s account, @realDonaldTrump, “functions as an official source of news and information about the government, and as a forum for speech by, to, and about the President.”A district court said the then President’s action of blocking followers violated the individuals’ First Amendment rights because it excluded them from a public forum based on their viewpoints a decision an appeals court later affirmed. Wonder if a bunch of democRATS were on that “appeals court” group?

Then Solicitor General Jeff Wall asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing that Trump’s account is personal, even if it is sometimes run by his assistant Dan Scavino.” By ignoring the critical distinction between the President’s (sometimes) official statements on Twitter and his always personal decision to block respondents from his own account,” Wall argued, the lower court opinion “blurs the line between state action and private conduct notwithstanding this Court’s repeated and recent exhortations to heed that line carefully in applying the First Amendment.

“But after the election and after Twitter banned Trump from the platform for violating its policies related to the US Capitol insurrection, Wall asked the Court to dismiss the case and wipe away the lower court opinion.

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″]