by Jeff Childers
Speaking of Biden overreach, in a terrific story mysteriously AWOL from corporate media, the Dallas Express ran an article Friday headlined, “Federal judge states Biden administration’s unilateral Title IX changes are a ‘threat to democracy’.”
Last month, the Biden Administration extended Title IX protections — originally meant to protect women’s sports and ensure equal access to education — to trans people, pre-empting protective state laws and allowing punishment of any colleges and schools that ban biological men from playing in women’s sports or accessing their private areas.
In other words, Biden’s new rule re-defines ‘womanhood’ to include penis carriers. So much for the feminists’ concept of toxic masculinity; farewell, we barely knew thee.
Biden’s new 423-page rules also require schools to let men use womens’ bathrooms and changing rooms, and requires teachers to use ungrammatical pronouns whenever students feel the urge to experiment, as many times as they want to swap genders, without limitation.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho filed suit, and late last week, federal district judge Terry Dougherty approved the four states’ emergency request for an injunction to halt the new Biden policy. By the way, Judge Dougherty is the same terrific Trump appointee who issued the great decision in Murthy v. Missouri, the social media censorship case now at the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff states correctly argued that Biden’s monstrous new rules turn Title IX on its head, undermining and eviscerating the law’s original objective. Encouragingly, the Court rejected the Biden Administration’s stupidly Orwellian effort to re-define “sex:”
Title IX was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination. Plaintiffs provided this Court with three different dictionary definitions of “sex” before, at, and after Title IX’s enactment in 1972. All these dictionaries define “sex” as “male or female.” Defendants have not provided a single dictionary definition that defined “sex” as including gender identity or sexual orientation either before or at the time of Title IX’s enactment.
Allowing this would allow decades of triumphs for women and men alike to go down the drain, and this Court finds that Defendants’ argument is meritless.
But the Court really hit its stride considering whether Biden had authority to make sweeping social changes like this without Congress weighing in. Judge Dougherty relied on the court-developed major questions doctrine, which became invaluable during the pandemic. Major questions require an act of Congress and can’t be slipped in through agency rulemaking:
To be a “major question,” the power exercised must be of a vast economic and political significance. Here, the Court finds that the Final Rule is an issue of vast economic significance. It is of vast political significance because it will affect every public elementary school, middle school, high school, and college in the United States that receives federal funding, and because it is a polarizing political issue that an agency has no authority to make.
Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendants do not have the authority to enact regulations which change the meaning of “sex discrimination” to include gender identity, sexual orientation, sex stereotypes or sex characteristics.
Maybe best of all, the Court found the new rules were irrational. In the law’s lingo, they are “arbitrary and capricious:”
Defendants failed to consider that biological females and biological males that identify as females have different body parts. Nearly every civilization recognizes a norm against exposing one’s unclothed body to the opposite sex. Yet, Defendants did not consider these cultural norms or the reasons such norms are so prevalent when adopting the Final Rule.
The Final Rule may likely cause biological females more discrimination than they had before Title IX was enacted. Importantly, Defendants did not consider the effect the Final Rule would have on biological females by requiring them to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males. The Final Rule only focuses on the “effect on the student who changes their gender identity” and fails to address the effect on the other students (“cisgender students”). These cisgender females must use the bathroom, undress, and shower in the presence of persons who may identify as females but still have male biological parts. Many of these students are minors.
Judge Dougherty was ungentle in his conclusion, explicitly calling Biden’s new Title IX rules “an abuse of power,” and quoting ancient wisdom about tyranny. His simple, straightforward conclusion needed no editing:
But the order’s final sentence was perhaps the best of all. Judge Dougherty — co-opting the left’s ceaseless refrain but using it properly — put the capstone on his order by correctly labeling executive overreach as a “threat to democracy:”
An appeal to the reliable Fifth Circuit will no doubt be forthcoming. From there, it will leap to the Supreme Court, which has, since 2020, been in the regular habit of striking revolutionary agency rulemaking like this 453-page monster.
Progress.
Biden wants to be a Emperor and rule for life and Hunter as his replacement the Demon-Rats want total Control