Offering emotional satisfaction, but little intellectual, constitutional, or moral completeness, a Federal District Court judge Thursday issued an injunction against the Biden Administration enforcing so-called “Title IX equal opportunity in education” mandates on states to include “trans” men posing as women or women posing as men.
Timothy Nerozzi reports for Fox News:
“U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday, and referred to the Biden administration's unilateral Title IX changes as a ‘threat to democracy.’"
Which hints at the big lessons wrapped inside this news package.
As Judge Doughty ought to know, the U.S. Constitution set up a representative republic, supposedly constraining the government by limiting those issues on which the “representatives” could vote in their “majority” pocket of pseudo-democracy within Congress. “Democracy” is gang rule, and there is no “democracy” to be applauded in the U.S. There is no “threatened democracy” in the U.S. because the system is not a demos - it is a republic, with strict limits that are legible within the Constitution.
As a result, Judge Doughty more appropriately could have said that the Biden administration's unilateral Title IX changes are a “threat to the U.S. Constitution via arbitrary Executive Branch expansion of Title IX of the Education Amendments that was enacted in 1972."
Why does it take a “non-judge” writing an article about the decision to remind the tax-paid judge about this reality?
Likewise, should it up to me, and, perhaps, you, the reader, to mention to the judge or people involved with government that there are deeper problems here, problems stemming from that 1972 statute, itself?
We will dig into those in a moment. Right now, let’s see more of what, for some conservatives are celebrating in this decision – celebrating because they have understandably become upset about the rising tide of wokeism and “trans” ideology in public education.
Nerozzi reports that Doughty’s injunction is based on what we have come to expect from supposedly “conservative” judges, a finding of offense in the “process” of the Biden Administration expanding the Title IX parameters, not in Title IX, itself.
"’This case demonstrates the abuse of power by executive federal agencies in the rulemaking process,’ Doughty said in his ruling. ‘The separation of powers and system of checks and balances exist in this country for a reason.’
Doughty ruled that the changes were inadmissible because the term ‘gender discrimination’ as used in the establishment of Title IX ‘only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment.’"
So, Judge Doughty correctly cited biological truth, which might give hope to Americans concerned about the Cultural Marxist, postmodernist, move to rewrite the laws of nature, manipulate the language, and broaden the laws of the U.S. to hand out special favors to the new, government-favored special interests.
But will they think about the larger problem? Judge Doughty’s cozy, but ill-informed use of the pat mantra “checks and balances” indicates that he has not done so, that, instead, he equates an expansion of Title IX that might be done through Congress, rather than the Biden Administration, to something acceptable, something in keeping with that wondrous “checks and balances” term he might have picked up in grade school.
The checks are in the CONSTITUTION, and only by seeing the area of the Constitution that is being manipulated by Title IX, itself, can one begin to safeguard against future manipulation of the language, degradation of federalism, and attacks on the Constitution.
According to the tax-fueled U.S. government’s own “U.S. Courts” website, the key lever for the 1972 Title IX boosters to promote their original impositions on colleges, high schools, and other educational institutions was, of course, the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As I mentioned last week, the belief that equal “handouts” by government (handouts that are funded through extraction of wealth from others) are the same thing as “equal protection” against person-on-person aggression shows us just how far afield most Americans (especially politicians and judges) are from the original conception of government as being a “protector” rather than a “provider” of handouts.
Related: Missouri Court Battle Over State-Funded Teen "Sex Changes"
I also mentioned last week that, logically and philosophically, even “police protection” done by the state is a handout, and it’s only funded by government demanding that you pay for it, which is a form of aggression, and creates a logic trap that even boosters of “limited government” cannot escape if they want to recognize and respect individual free will.
Regardless, it is this contemporary re-imagining of the actual text of the Equal Protection Clause that is the lynchpin of Title IX and of Biden’s attempt to unilaterally expand it.
So, as the U.S. government explains:
“Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which requires that no person be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex under ‘any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’ It authorizes any federal agency that provides such assistance to issue regulations to enforce the prohibition of sex discrimination. It also allows termination of financial assistance when an institution does not voluntarily comply.”
After failed court challenges (from Grove City College, in PA, and Hillsdale College, in MI) to block enforcement of Title IX on private universities getting federal grants, Congress expanded the provisions of the original 1972 statute to apply to any educational institution that even had students receiving federal “financial aid” for school. As the feds tell us on their exciting website the stuffed-shirts passed the “Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987…
“…which clarifies that a ‘program or activity,’ for purposes of Title IX and other civil rights laws, refers to ‘all operations’ of an institution whenever federal financial assistance is extended to ‘any part’ of the institution.”
The fact that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow the feds to offer “financial assistance” to colleges or other “educational institutions” seems unimportant to Congress, to many judges, to many Americans, and even to many state-level politicians. Thus, only the expansion of Title IX mandates to “cover” trans people was questioned by the states involved in the challenge (Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho). Title IX, itself, remains, to insult the Founders, and leave the door open to Congress amending the law in order to include, you got it… “Trans” people.
Even a small victory such as this from Judge Doughty overlooks deep legislative problems that undercut the Constitution and leave in place a fallacious conception of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the role of government in American life.
It’s more a learning opportunity than it is a victory. It is a ruling that tells us we might want to expand the number of people who understand the deeper issues involved. As long as tax money is thrown into education, the disputes over how it will be used will persist. At least the Constitution shows us that no federal money is to be used in this manner. From there, it's up to the residents of each state to handle what they do, and, hopefully, get government out of education entirely.
Follow MRCTV on X!
LA City Council removes a U-Turn sign because it supposedly discriminated against gays.
— MRCTV (@mrctv) June 14, 2024
https://t.co/CdIf5fJA3M