Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Wyoming for the win! We need more of this
Sledog
Member Posts: 33,915 
in Tug Tavern
A federal judge Tuesday said Wyoming doesn't have to follow a new federal rule allowing males identifying as females in school bathrooms. The judge ruled that Title IX doesn't trump free speech, privacy and safety rights of girls.
Comments
So we like unenumerated rights today.
Please to be citing the Constitutional provision that specifically empowers the federal government to allow dudes to whip their dick out in the women’s restroom.
Start with the 10th amendment and work from there
Your law degree is looking about as phony as your MBA
You assume I was disagreeing with the judge as opposed to simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you girls.
What hypocrisy?
One of Dazzlers favorite deflections.
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
Christ. Walk the safety up. Same old play.
Now do the “it was just a joke” angle.
This retarded pervert is upset that he can’t parade naked in a locker room in front of little girls if he visits Wyoming. Disgusting on every level.
You sound upset
The dazzler approves of showering with your teen daughter so why would he be upset if his daughter had to shower with a dude who just took her starting basketball spot from her?
That you stepped right into the snare is a you issue. Race was more cautious.
So no answer then
Gasbag ain’t about to acknowledge that he knows what the subject is.
Where’s that Bunker Hill spirit, old guy?
Happy Independence Day, cowards.
Any further updates on our hypocrisy?
In Griswold, the Supreme Court rejected a Connecticut state law that banned the use of birth control by married couples. (Yes, really.) The court reasoned that “specific guarantees in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights have penumbras … where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” There is the First Amendment’s rights to express your religious and political beliefs and to freely associate with others; the Third Amendment’s right to privacy in one’s own home by refusing to house soldiers during peacetime; the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government; the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination; and the Ninth Amendment’s preservation of other individual rights, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the Constitution.
Taken together, the Supreme Court concluded, the protections in the Bill of Rights meant the Founders believed there is a “right to be let alone.”
Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”
I have been reading many of you gals parroting Scalia and Thomas on this issue for more than 20 years. Today you celebrate a judge’s ruling based upon the same rights you would claim don’t exist in other contexts. Hypocrisy? Absolutely. Yours.
That doesn't allow dudes in the girls bathroom
Pathetic. You should stick to being vague
“I want you to spell it out unless that hurts my feelings!”, shrieked Race.
(I don’t have a problem with the judge’s reasoning, Phyllis.)
Of course you have a problem with it. That's what your deflection is all about. You vote for it
Title 9 isn't for trannies idiot. It's for women.
Title 9 isn’t for trannies?
No shit, Einstein!
When did you give up complex thought?