U.S. District Judge David Nye just rejected a last-minute effort to scuttle a Supreme Court case on transgender athletes. The Little v. Hecox lawsuit was initially filed by Lindsay Hecox in 2020, challenging a state law barring the biologically male athlete from joining the women’s cross-country team at Boise State. After winning before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. Hecox clearly did not like the prospects on appeal and sought to withdraw the case after the granting of certiorari. Judge Nye just denied that effort.
In the lawsuit, Nye was joined by an anonymous biological female student, Jane Doe, who objected to the sex dispute verification process.
Judge Nye denied the motion to dismiss as too late, ruling that “[Idaho] has a fair right to have its arguments heard and adjudicated once and for all.” He added that “the Court feels [Hecox’s] mootness argument is, as above, somewhat manipulative to avoid Supreme Court review and should not be endorsed.”
After a district court ruled for Hecox, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction blocking the state law in 2023. Counsel for Hecox argued that the athlete “has … decided to permanently withdraw and refrain from playing any women’s sports at BSU or in Idaho.”
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Kristen Waggoner argued against the effort to drop the litigation before the Supreme Court could rule.
This is one of two cases focused on the issue of trans athletes in women’s sports to be heard by the Supreme Court this term. The prospects, in my view, favor the challengers on appeal and a ruling in favor of such state laws.
West Virginia is also appealing to restore the “Save Women’s Sports Act” in 2021, after a lower court allowed transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson to compete on the school’s cross-country and track teams. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Pepper-Jackson.
One case that will not be before the Court is Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, involving parental rights. The Colorado case concerned two Colorado families whose sixth-grade daughters were encouraged to attend a school-sponsored Genders and Sexualities Alliance meeting. At the meeting, a teacher distributed transgender flags and allegedly encouraged students to “come out.” Students were told not to tell their parents.
In a statement accompanying the denial, Justice Samuel Alito noted that public school policies such as the one in this case are “troubling” and “tragic.”
Back to Little v. Hecox, we have previously seen the Court struggle with litigants gaming the system to pull out of an appeal just before the Court could rule. That was the case with New York when it moved to avoid a ruling on gun control laws and ultimately succeeded in getting a dismissal over the objections of some justices.
The ruling this week will now likely be appealed, setting up another “bait-and-switch” controversy before the Court.
Here is the Ninth Circuit opinion: Little v. Hecox
FAFO
We have one Justice who was confirmed to SCOTUS by repeatedly saying under oath that, even after taking a peek downwards into her panties to see what was smiling back at her, told Senators that she did not know what a woman is.
For the Democrat Trannies here today that are having a Midol Moment about this case: do you agree that Justice Jackson should recuse herself from hearing this case as Justice Barratt recused herself from a case that involved the Catholic Church?
Seems to be a simple question.
Obviously “justice” jackson has no knowledge or ability to adjudicate anything to do with gender and sexuality!
With Jacksons questions and stating many times that she is “does not understand” much of anything, I don’t think she is qualified to be any kind of Judge or a Lawyer. Guess DEI sure worked in her, Kagen and Sotomayor’s appointments and at times Barrett also as Barett thinks it’s OK for the government to censor the population.
No, she should be impeached as she never took an Oath of Office. Namely to uphold the Constitution. She used a koran, which states sharia is the supreme law, not our Constitution.
Correction: She used a Bible for her swearing into the Supreme Court.
I notice that many posts were deleted from the blog. Perhaps one person used a blocked address, or perhaps the posts were censored for other reasons. Many of them tried to diminish the integrity of the Torah, just as many leftists today try to diminish the value of the Constitution. So I’ll offer one brief reply to cover the many attacks.
Both the Constitution and the Torah share deep similarities, and I love them both. Each upholds the rule of law, the foundation that allows human growth and moral progress.
Numerous passages of the Torah were criticized without documentation or context, and, like the Constitution, certain portions were labeled “extremist.” Take, for example, Deuteronomy 13:10–11. Some called stoning barbaric without any consideration of the circumstances. What was actually being discussed was the prevention of idol worshippers from practicing rituals that involved the sacrifice and death of women and children. Those laws were not acts of cruelty. They were designed to stop cruelty. The death penalty was prescribed to protect the innocent, and even then, its actual application was exceedingly rare.
What was done in the Torah parallels what the present Supreme Court case and a few others are truly about: protecting women and children from those who would use any means, no matter how harmful, to gain power.
Aside from the discussions of the Abrahamic faiths, and the condemnations mainly brought by adherents to the Atheist Rock Fairy cult, there is one very simple basic fact:
As a rational human adults, we shouldn’t need either religious faith or an absence of religious faith to understand it is fundamentally and logically wrong to think that men cosplaying as women can fairly compete against girls and women in female sports. Whether or not real Trannies, versus male perverts cosplaying as Trannies, are only .01% of the male population.
Meanwhile, we don’t see women cosplaying as male Trannies equally eager to confirm their inner male identity by showing up to try out for the male football team, boxing, etc.
Hard not to notice that massive difference between male and female Trannies.
I don’t think the constitution said to kill the infidels
You may be thinking of the Koran or the Hamas Charter.
“Oh yes, the concept of freedom of speech came from the Torah. Dude, at least make a cogent argument….” Blah, blah, blah!
You confuse length with logic. Nothing you wrote refutes a word of mine. The Torah didn’t promise free speech. It created moral law, which made freedom possible. You call that “cheese” because you can’t digest ideas older than yourself.
Note: Another post I couldn’t find. They must have let out all the inmates from the hospital in Clockwork Orange.
Meyer
This is why religious fanatics of all persuasions are so inherently dangerous and evil.
Every religion claims to be the only true faith.
Every religion claims to the only source of truth.
Every religion claims to be the only source of morality.
Your claim that the Torah “created moral law” is patently absurd. Every religion makes this claim.
You can’t all be right.
The reality is that you are all blinded by fanatical cultish beliefs that have no basis in reality.
This cultish behavior explains why so many of you in the MAGA cult are religious fanatics. But you are totally incapable of understanding that you are following a cult leader who has no discernible religious beliefs. Despite this you seem to be able to lay aside your bizarre religious beliefs and prostrate yourself before an orange cult leader who is arguably totally devoid of any moral character and the supposed morality to which you all so ardently adhere.
^ Troll cult-member has drunk deeply from the well of cultish anti-religious hysteria. Watch out for that monster under your bed, little child, it is a religious monster. Hahahahahah! ^
You are too stupid to reply to.
“the Torah “created moral law” does not exclude other religions or governments from creating moral law as well.
” so many of you in the MAGA cult are religious fanatics”
You call others fanatics, but what do you call it when, just for power, you’re willing to sacrifice your own women and children? That’s what this case, and others like it, are really about: protecting women and children from those who will do anything to keep control. You don’t want the Court to rule because it would limit your power, and that’s what you can’t stand.
Meyer
Your stupidity is beyond belief.
As most religious fanatics always do when challenged, you obfuscate, change the subject and try to come up with a way to rationalize the irrational.
You started out saying “the Torah created moral law”, and now hedge that statement by saying that “other religions can make “moral law” as well.
Are these other “moral laws” equivalent to your “moral law” ??
Do you accept the “moral law” of other religions??
Do you accept the “moral law” of the Quran??
Of course you don’t !!!
You believe that YOUR “moral law” is far superior and the only true “moral law”.
So you obsequiously attempt to modify your assertion that “the Torah created moral law” by trying to imply that you believe other religions are free to create their own “moral law”, while refusing to acknowledge that other “moral law” may be equivalent or even superior to yours.
Your arguments are based on a foundation of quicksand in which you flail about making increasingly absurd, nonsensical and self-contradictory assertions as you disappear helplessly into the abyss.
Your criticism of Meyer is not logical. There is no contradiction in saying the Torah created moral law and that the scriptures of other religions create moral law too. Furthermore, you’re hyperbole in describing anyone you disagree with (“obsequious” … “fanatic” … “obfuscate” … “irrational” … “quicksand” … “self-contradictory” … “absurd” … “abyss”) are so over the top as to reflect emotional instability on your part. Did you have a traumatic experience as a child where the Torah physically injured you? Did a large Hebrew scroll fall on your back and break it, leaving you permanently scarred, both mentally and physically?
Meyer – this is not someone you should waste your time with. This is an anti-religious fundamentalist, and we know that with fundamentalists facts and logic hold no sway.
Why don’t you address the question instead of attacking me ???
If you accept that other religions are free to create “moral law”, do you accept the validity of those other “moral laws” ??
Or do you simply accept for the sake of this argument that other religions can create their own “moral laws”, while you deny them as inferior or invalid ???
If you refuse to accept the validity of the “moral law” of other religions, then that is the same functional argument that “the Torah created moral law”, because all other “moral laws” are by definition inferior and thus not actually “moral law”.
Of course you believe that YOUR “moral law” is the only true and valid “moral law”.
Good point!
Kansas, thank you for saving me the time. Logic must not have been taught on his side of the world.
Meyer
You stated that other religions are free to create their own moral law.
But the question is, do you accept those other moral laws as valid ??
If not, then you are simply being evasive and hypocritical for the sake of an argument, while you still believe that the Torah created the only VALID moral law.
So answer this very simple question.
Do you accept the moral law of other religions as valid ?
Why TF do you care, psycho?
I don’t think you understand the principles behind morality or how it developed.
Which of the following do you consider moral?
a) Sacrificing women and children by fire
b) ‘Thou shalt not murder’
c) a & b
Choose your answer.
And the Rock Fairy Religion of Atheism pops up its head from the Democrat Borg. No surprise, as the Atheist cult are considered the chosen people according to Karl Marx’s communist theology that he laid out for the bitter, inept, and envious of the world.
Hmmm. A sixty-second example of gaslighting???
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EEG3qMvq1G8
It appears that some emails were lost, or I couldn’t find them on the blog.
OldmanfromKansas responded to ‘And Jews like our own Mr Myer have come up with their own methods of explaining away the original text of their most sacred writings.’
Oldman replies
The term “explaining away” is a bit ambiguous. The Bible consists of 66 books and many different kinds of literature. There’s history, genealogy, theology, poetry, law, wisdom literature, exhortation, apocalyptic literature (meaning, the veil is pulled back and the writer is given a glimpse into heaven or the spirit world – not necessarily involving the end of the world), and so on. Each type of literature is supposed to be interpreted differently. Pointing out that many idioms and phrases are figurative and not meant to be interpreted literally is not “explaining away.”
I will provide a paraphrase of Rashi on Genesis 1:1: Torah begins with Creation to show God’s sovereignty and moral order, not to teach chronology.
Couple of points. The original Bible, compiled by the Roman Catholic Church, has 73 books. Luther in his heretical arrogance removed 7 because they didn’t meet “his” ideas of sacred scripture. The idea of God using 6, 24 hour periods is possible. He is GOD after all. But Peter tells us that with God a thousand years are like a day. Come and gone. No more than a watch in the night. The entire argument can be summed up in the middle age discussion of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Interesting with appropriate libations but pointless.
The Hebrew Bible, known as the Old Testament, has a lesser number of books depending on how one might count them. I think 24 would be the most appropriate number. The scrolls are compressed. Here is the breakdown, counting individual scrolls: The Five Books of Moses, the Neva’im 21, and the Ketuvim,13. That is closer to the structure of non-Jewish counts.
Every winter, I take out my Catholic Bible and read the Hanukkah story. It has to be a Catholic Bible, because the rabbis purged the books of the Maccabees centuries ago, and the Protestants followed suit.
Congratulations on your dedication to the Hanukkah story. But let’s be accurate, no books were purged, as you claim. The evidence is simple: you read those very books every year.
The Books of the Maccabees were not included in the Hebrew Canon because that canon was limited to works written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Catholic Old Testament, by contrast, follows the Septuagint, a Greek translation made centuries later, not the original Hebrew Torah. The Protestants excluded the Maccabees for the same reason as the Jews: they were historical works, not part of the inspired canon.
So, before you accuse anyone of “purging,” perhaps ask why you feel the need to turn a historical choice of language and canon into an act of suppression. Why are you people so angry and accusatory?
The first account of creation in Genesis comes from Babylon, bought to the Levant by the Jews who returned upon being released to do so by Cyrus the Mede, It is first simply because that was the easiest place to add the scroll to the Genesis roll, or Ark.
Professor – we can argue at length about the six-day creation, but that will not profit us. The main takeaway is this: God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on that day he rested from his work of creating (Genesis 2:3).
From this we get the concept of Sabbath holiness. And what’s more, God invites you and me into that Sabbath holiness. Will you accept or decline the invitation? Now that’s the question that will be profitable to ponder carefully.
Shabbat Shalom a little early 🙂
Yes, I know well someone who was raIsed in the Seventh Day Adventist church.
As for me, I am a scientist and only (partially) accept explanations of the creation which are based on physical laws.
As for how we get along together, sociologists and philosophers attempt to provide expositions.
off topic, I have a couple of dear colleagues at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
I wonder if REAL scientists are embarrassed at how many of their fellow scientists believe that little boys can become REAL little girls with just a little bit of surgical and chemical mutilation?
oldmanfromkansas,
I’ve checked the mail. No invite. Same with most of Asia. Billions of people left off the invite list.
Can you post a photo of the invitation you got or is this one of those multi-level marketing schemes where someone told you that you could be rich if you joined the organization?
“. . . on that day he rested . . .”
If God is omnipotent, why does he need to rest?
Good question. It’s not the same type of rest that we do. He does not need that type of rest. He does not need a nap. Theologically speaking, it is more of a shifting of modes: from creating to sustaining what he created. Without God’s sustaining power the universe could not continue in existence. God’s existence is inherent to who he is, whereas the world’s existence is contingent, not inherent. I realize you will not agree with any of this, but since you asked the question I thought I should at least try to answer it, that you deserved that effort on my part.
What a load of nonsensical gobbledegook !!!!
How can you possibly know that any of this is true. You simply make stuff up in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.
This is the problem with all religions and all the adherents to religions.
When confronted with obvious inconsistencies in your absurd beliefs, you find some bizarre way of explaining the unexplainable. The explanations are always bizarre and convoluted and usually self-contradictory or contradict some other wacky belief. You are then forced into a never ending series of increasingly convoluted and crazy attempts to rationalize the irrational.
You should simply apply Occam’s Razor. The simplest answer is usually correct.
The simplest answer is that there is no god.
This is the problem with all religions and all the adherents to religions.
Then don’t be an adherent to a religion. Problem solved.
The simplest answer is that there is no god.
You are welcome to believe that. It doesn’t really matter to me one way or another. Problem solved.
“Then don’t be an adherent to a religion. Problem solved.”
Problem solved is a great answer, but not to a leftist who cannot tolerate the opinions of others. Stalin would have loved these guys.
If God is omnipotent, why do the cult followers of the rock fairy religion of Atheism demand he can’t take a day just to have a change of pace? Because he’s God, he can’t get bored or need a break because he thinks he’s running out of ideas?
As an agnostic I wonder why the Atheist cult doesn’t spend less time primarily attacking the Christian faiths and instead spend more time coming up with a rational explanation for how one moment there was nothing but elements and compounds, and then suddenly DNA and life suddenly existed! Rock fairies did it!!!!
I have about as much trouble understanding the Atheist theocracy so embraced by Karl Marx for communism, as I do the Immaculate Conception believed by Christians.
David, there are many different points of view on this subject. You are welcome to have yours, but why is yours better than any other? In the past, you were unable to defend your points, so I hope that helps you recognize that some opinions are similar to what you said, but it is a point that you might have to defend.
S. Meyer — You might care to see what ‘professional’ biblical scholars have to say about the first account in Genesis. In particular, it doesn’t appear in Dead Sea scrolls, AFAIK, based on the one book about those that I read. Also, one could look into what scholars of the ancient Middle East have been able to determine. For example, much of account of the young Moses in Egypt is straight from the Lay of Gilgamesh of the city of Uhr, near the mouths of the Twin Rivers.
David, there are loads of professionals offering their opinions that need not be the same, and none of them may be correct. Archeologists base things on what they see. What was called a myth by the professionals suddenly is found to be true when further discoveries are made. This happens repeatedly, so don’t bet all your coins on the professional since many have a lousy track record.
Look at the number of myths the dig at David’s City destroyed. You might want to read about it in the book, “Let the Stones Speak.” Absolutely fascinating, and you, in particular, would like it.
Thanks. The Wikipedia page on the City of David was enough for me.
Wikipedia… in a tight race with the New York Times for the title of the most trustworthy source of information in America!
S. Meyer,
The professionals get things incorrect from time to time, but the science of it leads to adjustments to get better assessments. Not sure which “myth” turned out to be true that you are considering. “Archaeologists base things on what they see.” have often come to misleading conclusions by interpreting what they find from an incorrect starting point. And it’s not an easy job. The Sphinx was as old in Egypt when the great pyramids were built as the great pyramids are to us today. In consideration of that they have a pretty good track record.
That is what science is: constant advancement. I was pointing out to David that while professionals might draw a conclusion based on a specific finding, that doesn’t mean other conclusions should be laughed at.
David’s City proved that what many considered myths were actually reality.
“The first account of creation in Genesis comes from Babylon, bought to the Levant by the Jews who returned upon being released to do so by Cyrus the Mede”
Where were the ‘Palestinians’ while all this was going on?
A Clinton-appointed judge in San Francisco is now saying Trump cannot fire people during the shutdown. Judges are getting their hands into every detail of executive power. There is now a pattern of overreaching federal district judges which, collectively, amounts to a judicial insurrection. The judges are shifting power from the executive (elected by the people) to the judiciary (unelected). It’s illegitimate.
This is not just judges interpreting and applying the law. There are two sides locked in a battle. There’s the globalist-radical-woke deep state that favors rule by unelected “experts” and distrusts the people acting through the ballot box to make decisions about government. This is the same woke agenda as the leftist corporate media, public education, academia, and until recently, even the military. Because they distrust regular people exercising the franchise, they use pejorative labels about populism, for example, calling it “far right” when populism is in fact the will of the people. This is a global struggle. In places like Romania, they even canceled a free and fair election because the candidate elected by the people was not to their liking.
The other side is the Trump-MAGA side elected by the people to clean out the deep state and drain the swamp. There is a huge power battle going on between these two sides. The federal judges are on the wrong side – the side of the globalist, woke elite. They are trying to permanently shift power from the elected representatives to the unelected bureaucrats, from the people to the “experts.”
Wordsmithers
They take others money, they don’t make money. Ask an engineer, a Contractor , a Doctor or any private side person, they have sucked the life blood from every profession there is, except their own…
“THE POWER THE LAWS CONFER ON ME HAS BEEN RESISTED BY A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME.”
The executive power is vested in a President of the United States.
The judicial branch has no executive power.
The judicial branch may issue a determination; it may not exercise executive power.
If there is a problem, Congress has the power to impeach and convict the president.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
“– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861”
Isn’t that the wise Chief Justice Taney who ruled just five years earlier that the Constitution told him that Dredd Scott, a black American born in America, was just a piece property, not an actual human being?
Same Taney who in that ruling assured the Confederate Slaver Democrat states that the Missouri Compromise of 30 years earlier wasn’t binding on them to justify their insurrection shortly afterwards?
Sounds like a SCOTUS justice our GeorgeX could have a deep personal love affair with 150 years ago.
oldmanfromkansas,
Those people are employed based on an appropriation by law originated by Congress and signed by the President. Firing people en mass without a change in the law that got them employed in the first place is illegal. The Chief Executive is empowered to follow the law, and that includes managing the parts of the Executive Branch. There is no lawful power to turn the process of running the Executive Branch over to the Project 2025 hacks to demolish the functional portions.
“distrusts the people acting through the ballot box to make decisions about government” is exactly what Republicans in Missouri have been doing for a while. The Republicans continue to take items passed by wide margins on state and local ballots and override them with new laws, almost immediately after passage with the excuse that voters are too stupid to know what they approved. We are talking 60+% approvals in a state that is 90% Republican; even if all the Democratic votes are ignored, the measure still would pass. Why don’t Missouri Republican leaders trust Missouri Republican voters? Don’t know. But it’s not the Liberals doing this.
There is no deep state, there is no swamp in the government. There is Citizens United that has made the lobbyists near dictatorial of Federal policy, but I guess if one can spend, say $250 Million dollars as Musk did for Trump’s election campaign, one can get a government job for as long as you like to do whatever benefits your company. Where do you think Project 2025 originated?
What do you suppose will happen, when the first generation of medically-modified transvestites hits advanced old age, develops dementia, and subsequently forget to remain in character? You may find the wrinkle-ranch populated with more than a few bearded-ladies, looking high and especially low, for the junk they no longer remember discarding all those years ago. Kitschy – “remember” – will that be the new name of a de-transitioning surgery?
Democrats. A two-minute public service announcement:
Perfect!
*. Darren or whomever, you censored me again. You censor any religious commentary.
Bizarre
Trans Male-to-Female: I’m a woman, darn it, not a man, why doesn’t anybody understand that!?
Urologist Physician: I don’t understand it either, ma’am, but here is the bad news. Your prostate cancer screening revealed you have benign prostatic hyperplasia. The gold standard treatment involves transurethral resection of the prostate which may cause your peter to no longer get stiff, aka erectile dysfunction, and a happy ending may be a thing of the past. You’re welcome, madam.
El-Assmy, A., et al. (2018). Erectile and ejaculatory functions changes following bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. International urology and nephrology, 50(9), pp.1569-1576. doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-1950-6
Oumouamoua? That’s the fecal sludge launched into space by another world. It’s their way of garbage disposal. The trajectory is off or it’d hit the sun. Solar disposal site.
Trans includes both homosexuals and simulants. The issue is not trans, but sims specifically in conflation of sex and gender that poses a risk, in particular, to females.
Where gender refers to sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). And trans indicates a state or process of divergence.
They all involve sexual mental disorders.
Rabble:
I’d say it’s not even that. It’s the groups that have slithered into the shade of the LGB umbrella like so many biblical snakes, using the umbrella as a shield in order to push their tripe, crap, and propaganda. We wonder why the slippery slope turned so fast into a cliff, and it’s because the LGB couldn’t be assed to gatekeep from bad actors that now show their true colors like the venomous cretins they are.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/drag-queens-chanting-were-coming-for-your-kids-hurt-gay-rights/?msockid=bdb7dd9faa2311f0a2b8d9f2c1ac4ea8
Simulants????Stimulants????? I kept reading it as stimulants.
Sci fi?