Supreme Court turns away Wisconsin parents who say schools are hiding transgender support plans as Alito dissents

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal from a group of parents who say their Wisconsin school district is hiding transgender support plans involving their children.

Three conservatives said they would have heard the case: Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. While the Supreme Court didn’t say why it declined to hear the case, a lower court had ruled against the parents because, it said, they didn’t have standing to sue since they didn’t demonstrate the policy affected their children.

“I am concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation” to rely on standing as a way of “avoiding particularly contentious constitutional questions,” Alito wrote.

Parents Protecting Our Children was asking the high court to allow the lawsuit against the district to continue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-turns-away-wisconsin-145957751.html

[Jacson6]

1. It would be ironic if Alito turned to be wearing a dress at night.

It's always the biggest protester about topics of sexuality to have a secret life.

When I was a kid our preacher railed against sex outside of marriage and homosexuals. Surprise! He was married having an affair with several women in the congregation and a gay bondage thing going on with the deacon.

[leftieNanner]

5. Case in point

J. Edgar Hoover

[Trenzalore]

6. Predators seek positions of authority for camouflage

[NameAlreadyTaken]

2. Frivolous lawsuit

[Clouds Passing]

3. "So rephrase your argument and come back" says the opus dei trio.

[Raven123]

4. Yeah, darned that standing clause.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The definition of who has standing from my reading has been debated, but the Constitution states it must be there. I guess it isn’t in Alito’s version

[TommyT139]

7. from what the WaPo said,

Any gender plan is available to parental view. They just have to notice enough to ask about it.