Rogue Judges Contained

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (103 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image84
    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

    Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges.  I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority.  There were also important rulings for parents and more.

    Nationwide injunctions
    In the most high-profile case of the day, the Supreme Court ended the practice of judges issuing sweeping injunctions that cover the whole country and not just parties involved in a case.

    The injunctions, often known as "nationwide injunctions," have been a source of frustration for President Donald Trump as judges side with plaintiffs and block key parts of the president's agenda.

    The case arose from several judges issuing injunctions that blocked Trump from carrying out his birthright citizenship plan. Rather than ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the merits of the plan, which has been uniformly rejected in courts, Trump asked the high court to put a stop to the injunction practice.

    The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision left open the possibility that judges and plaintiffs could use other avenues, such as class action lawsuits, to seek broad relief now that the high court has curtailed nationwide injunctions.

    Parental rights
    The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can opt their children out of a Maryland public school system's lessons when they contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the content conflicts with their religious beliefs.

    Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the government "burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill."

    he Trump administration celebrated the ruling as a victory for "parental rights," while Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a scathing dissent that the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons.

    Age verification of explicit websites
    The Supreme Court allowed Texas to require age verification for users of pornographic websites, dealing a win to those aiming to block children from accessing explicit material online.

    A trade association for the porn industry brought the lawsuit, alleging the age requirement meant the state was unconstitutionally regulating free speech on the internet.

    "This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures."

    Voting rights
    The Supreme Court punted its case about Louisiana's congressional maps, indicating it needed a few more questions answered during oral arguments in the fall.

    The delay means that Louisiana's map of voting districts, including majority-Black districts, would not see any changes until the 2028 election cycle or later.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/final- … ng-rulings

    1. Willowarbor profile image59
      Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Flip-flopping, pretzel twisting hypocrisy as per usual from maga.  It's become the hallmark of the group.

      How do you reconcile the fact that SCOTUS refused to limit nationwide injunctions under Biden but find a reason for the action now??

      Funny how no one complained about nationwide injunctions when Biden was in office....

      Total hypocrisy. Conservatives constantly filed for nationwide injunctions in the one judge circuit in Amarillo during Biden's administration. Dems agued against them, but the Supreme Court stayed silent then.... Easy for you folks to ignore.

      But be careful what you wish for, maybe the next Democratic president can solve out gun violence epidemic by confiscating your weapons.  No Nationwide injunction?, great! y'all can sue one by one over and over and over again to get your guns back LOL

      MAGA'S flip-flopping for Trump yet again. The group  has no core beliefs, just cult mentality and hate.

      And the leader? His only principles are grift and power...

  2. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    The irony of this just spills everywhere, 
    because of course, the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunction after nationwide injunction in cases that didn’t warrant it. And they repeatedly asked the Supreme Court for remedy... The Republican justices declined to do so.

    And now, all of a sudden, five months into the Trump administration, they realize, “Oh, nationwide injunctions? Yeah, they’ve basically been legally suspect all along.”.

    How convenient, and it is just gross in its obvious hypocrisy....

    But please tell me more about how you've always been against universal injunction LMFAO

    Maga has no consistent principles... It's whatever dear leader decides for the day.

  3. Readmikenow profile image84
    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

    The practice of using injunctions to block presidential policies began with six injunctions during the two terms of President George W. Bush, then rapidly expanded, leading to 12 injunctions under Obama, 64 under Trump in his first term, and 14 under Biden. Even as their number has increased, the percentage of national injunctions imposed by federal judges appointed by a president of the party that opposes the sitting president’s party rose from 50 percent under Bush to 58.3 percent under Obama to 92.2 percent under Trump to 100 percent under Biden. While lawfare by injunction is disproportionately carried out by Democrats, conservative Republican judges have gotten in on the action as well. In Biden’s first three years as president, every single one of 14 nationwide injunctions, on topics ranging from halting vaccine mandates to immigration and climate change policies, was issued by a judge appointed by a Republican president. In total, 93.6 percent of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump and Biden administrations from 2017 to 2025 were issued by judges installed by a president of the rival party. Not only did Democrat-appointed judges issue 59 of the 64 nationwide injunctions in Trump’s first term, but also more than half of the injunctions were issued by Democratic judges on only three courts: the Northern District of California (23.4%), the District Court of the District of Columbia (15.6%), and the District of Maryland (12.5%).

    The same pattern of partisan lawfare by Democrat-appointed federal judges exists in Trump’s second presidency. Three-fourths of the federal judges who have blocked Trump administration actions were appointed by Democratic presidents. According to RealClearInvestigations, Democratic presidents appointed more than 4 in 5 of the judges presiding in federal courts that have issued universal injunctions.

    federal judges who issue nationwide injunctions themselves may be breaking the law. Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs federal courts, permits a court to issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order only if the party calling for it posts an “injunction bond” equal to any potential losses from the order. Although the mandatory requirement of an injunction bond was reaffirmed in 2007, federal courts routinely allow parties to sue without posting bond. This has contributed to the proliferation of partisan lawsuits against presidential actions and forum shopping. There is little cost to such litigation, and the payoff can be enormous if a carefully selected partisan judge issues an injunction against a president of the other party.

    1. Willowarbor profile image59
      Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, an open invitation for the president to bypass the Constitution.  An executive order to ban guns? An executive order to ban Muslims from gathering to pray? An executive order to ban mifipristone across state lines? An executive order to end daca?.... Oh yes, all are possible now.  Relief granted only to those who can obtain and afford legal representation while the matters slowly crawl their way through our system...

  4. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    My oh my ... This will prove to be a lot to live up to.

    Will Amy Barrett keep this energy for the next democratic president? She said basically in the part I highlighted in yellow, while the executive branch has the duty to follow the law. The judicial branch can’t enforce them to follow the law. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

    In this statement alone she is saying the executive branch CAN break the law and no one can do anything about it.   And yes, coming from the  least experienced Supreme Court member  in 30 years...

    https://hubstatic.com/17545258.jpg

  5. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    Is there a reason that Maga cheered, praised  and encouraged nationwide injunction during the Biden years but has turned against it under trump?  There are many examples of previous posts showing the support for such.

    Why the change of heart?

  6. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks ago

    Mike,   I agree with your comment, and the Supreme Court’s decision to end the use of nationwide injunctions by individual federal district court judges is a major win for judicial restraint and the Constitution. These injunctions allowed a single judge to freeze a president’s entire national policy, even when that judge only had jurisdiction over one district. That was never how the judiciary was meant to function.

    Importantly, President Trump was the first president to formally ask the Supreme Court to curtail this practice, and he was right to do so.  No president before him, including President Biden, had ever directly petitioned the Court to stop federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions and to confine their rulings to their own jurisdictions. Trump made the bold and unprecedented move to protect the authority of the executive branch and restore the proper balance between the branches of government.

    That said, President Biden did fight against three lower-court nationwide injunctions when they blocked his policies, though he never publicly challenged the practice as aggressively as Trump did. Biden took at least three such cases to the Supreme Court. In Department of Homeland Security v. Texas (2023), the Court ruled 8–1 in Biden’s favor, holding that the administration had discretion in immigration enforcement and that the states lacked standing to interfere. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Court ruled against him 6–3, striking down his student loan forgiveness plan as an overreach of executive authority. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), the Court again sided with Biden in a 6–3 ruling, stating that the plaintiffs lacked standing and vacating the nationwide injunction that had limited government contact with social media companies. So while Biden never asked for an end to nationwide injunctions outright, he did fight back when those rulings hampered his administration — and he won two out of three times.

    The Supreme Court ruling represents a significant victory for the presidency. It does not prevent individuals or groups from pursuing legal challenges against the government, and all cases may still be appealed through the court system. However, federal district judges can no longer issue injunctions that block a president’s policies on a nationwide scale. Instead, any injunctions must generally apply only to the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, limiting the ability of a single judge to halt executive actions across the entire country.

    1. Willowarbor profile image59
      Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Their ruling represents the courts mushy mixed record, sometimes allowing injunctions to remain in effect and other times vacating them...all of a sudden they have clarity?  Nah.  And the majority of maga folks here, previously cheered Nationwide injunctions.  Called them " necessary"

    2. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Nuff Said.

      Common Sense.

      Rational, logical, and supported by the Constitution.

      If anything, the Supreme Court did not go far enough.

  7. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    I seem to remember a Trump appointed federal judge in North Texas issuing a nationwide injunction on Bidens student loan forgiveness and Republicans cheered it on...

    This Supreme court ruling is gonna bite yall in the ass when a Democrat is president again.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      LOL That's pretty much how it works, good for goose....

      1. Readmikenow profile image84
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Shar,

        This ruling is important because it means that President Donald Trump will be able to fulfill his campaign promises to the American People.  The voters of the United States voted for mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship and more.  President Donald Trump was very open about what he would do if elected.  He now gets to do what he promised.

        The democrats don't seem to comprehend they lost the election.  This means their political agenda does not get implemented.  The American people have spoken. 

        This ruling by the SCOTUS was necessary because rogue federal judges were issuing nationwide injunctions at levels never before seen.  President Donald Trump had 64 such injunctions during his entire first term.  He has now had 44 in the first six months of his presidency.  It is absolutely ridiculous.

        Now, a federal district court judge can only rule on matters that impact their district. 

        It is the way it was designed.

        This didn't have to happen should the democrats have not attempted to stop a political agenda voted for by the American people.

        1. Willowarbor profile image59
          Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Lol what makes you think Trump can violate the constitution with attempting to end birthright citizenship? 

          And again, maga folks have shown themselves to be hypocrites over and over and over again.... Praising Nationwide injunction during the Biden administration, seeking Nationwide injunction during that time.... Yes, but please tell me more about how it's such a terrible thing now...does maga  have ANY principles they actually stand firmly on? 

          Hypocrisy has become the hallmark of maga

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Mike,   I completely agree, this Supreme Court decision is a major win for the rule of law and for the constitutional balance of power. It rightly reins in the out-of-control trend of district judges issuing nationwide injunctions that stretch far beyond their jurisdiction. The ruling doesn’t strip away due process or limit a person’s right to appeal, in fact, it preserves the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring appeals still go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. What it does do is protect the ability of states to function democratically, without being overridden by the personal ideology of a single judge in one corner of the country. I’m overjoyed to see President Trump win these cases in the high court, not just for his sake, but because he’s setting legal precedents this country has needed for decades. No other president has had the courage to step up like this and challenge the imbalance. This ruling keeps ideologies in check and restores power to the people and the officials they elected,  exactly how it was meant to work.

          No one’s going to stand in Trump’s way when it comes to pushing forward with his agenda, I think even the Democrats are starting to accept that reality. Honestly, in my view, they’ve set themselves up for political ruin for decades to come. Their obsession with far-left ideologies has completely alienated everyday Americans, and now they’re facing the consequences.

          I was a bit disappointed that the Court didn’t issue a ruling on birthright citizenship yet, but it looks like we’ll get one in October. That said, I actually appreciate that they’re taking their time with it, that tells me they’re approaching it seriously and carefully. I have a strong feeling Trump will get at least a partial win here. I expect the Supreme Court to refine the interpretation of birthright citizenship in a way that prevents migrants who are in the country awaiting asylum hearings from automatically granting citizenship to children born here. This is a long-overdue issue that absolutely needs to be addressed, and thank God Trump had the courage to push it forward. 

          I truly believe that before Trump’s term is over, he’s going to deliver a lot of the changes this country has needed for years, and he’ll do it strategically, often through the back door if that’s what it takes. That’s the difference between a seasoned businessman and a lifelong politician. Trump knows how to navigate obstacles, adapt, and get results without playing the same tired political games.

          I mean, was this past week not great?

          1. Willowarbor profile image59
            Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Literally everything Trump does is tone deaf.... As evidenced by the lack of support in the polls for ANY of his policies and and his own  approval rating being underwater in every poll.  The man and his agenda are deeply unpopular....and on top of it, you have Republican sycophants in Congress pushing a bill that Americans are overwhelmingly against.  I think Democrats are excited to sweep a lot of these people away in the midterm.

  8. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.

    I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts.

    So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion....

    Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith....My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.

    Correct?   Does SCOTUS show I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump? 

    I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are “radical left thugs that live like vermin” and describing a female vice president of the United States as “mentally impaired” and “a weak and foolish woman” are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a president.

    As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classrooms"

    Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency.

    Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

    I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump’s behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith.   Right?

    Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: “The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.”

    Amen to that. I object to the subject Trump... Let the chaos ensue.

    Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion https://share.google/E2mCdHxFwVVD6hYpn

    1. Readmikenow profile image84
      Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a very real thing.

      One of the may symptoms seems to be a total inability to discuss political subjects in a rational way without obsessing about President Donald Trump.

      There HAS to be a way to treat this conditions affecting millions of individuals in the United States.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        We discuss political subjects in a rational way, recognizing that Trump is at the core of stark disagreement between the parties.

        1. wilderness profile image78
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          It is not rational to declare or insinuate that Trump is evil incarnate, the devil walking among us, the worst person every to inhabit the earth.  Same thing for anyone remotely connected to MAGA.  Same thing for any "right winger" conservatives.

          Yet that is exactly what those with TDS do.  It is so seldom about disagreements - it is about how evil the Great Liar Trump and his followers are.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I found this article a perfect example of TDS. Her analogy was upside down, and she presented the worst symptom of TDS --- a full-on rant.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Did you read the link?   Did you find any form of logic in this author's analogy when read in full context? 

          They tried to compare teaching children about the existence and presidency of Donald Trump (a historical and civic fact) with parents opting out of LGBTQ-themed lessons based on deeply held religious beliefs. These are fundamentally different in purpose and content. Teaching about a U.S. president, even one some people find objectionable, is part of standard, fact-based education. LGBTQ-themed lessons often include moral or value-laden content that may directly contradict specific religious teachings. The Supreme Court ruling was about accommodating religious beliefs in such cases, not about shielding kids from learning unpleasant truths or facts.

        3. Readmikenow profile image84
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          There are those on the left who obsess about President Donald Trump and let their obsession blind them from facts, truth, and reality.

          It used to be funny, then is was sad, now it's getting upsetting.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Well you are going to be lot more upset, because until I bring that man down, I remain on the warpath.

            A liar, a thief and a felon, how much more is there to be obsessed about?

            1. Readmikenow profile image84
              Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              "until I bring that man down"

              Sorry, that's funny.

              dems have tried everything legal, illegal, and more and failed at every turn.

              He STILL became the 47th president willing the popular vote as well as electoral college.

              Good luck with that dream.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, TDS is real. And the person who wrote that article has it bad. OMG

        The article reflects a skewed mindset and makes little practical sense. It's built on a deliberately exaggerated analogy that, while trying to be clever or satirical, ends up distorting both the intent and the scope of the Supreme Court ruling.

        The author essentially equates teaching a factual civic reality (that Trump is or was president) with indoctrination, which is not only illogical but reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how public education and the First Amendment work. The comment suggests that political dislike can be elevated to the level of a religious objection, which is both unserious and unworkable if applied consistently.

        In my view,  it shows a mindset more interested in scoring a rhetorical point than engaging with the actual legal and educational implications of the ruling.  I see it as upside-down reasoning; it blurs the line between moral values and factual education in a way that simply doesn't hold up.

        I mean, she can teach her offspring anything she pleases about pretty much anything. But she has no right to dictate her skewed views to other children.

        1. Readmikenow profile image84
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Does anyone on the left realize that President Donald Trump lives rent free in their heads in a big way?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            They do, but go figure.  One thing I can say we are living to see a very odd phenomenon, one like I have never witnessed.

        2. Willowarbor profile image59
          Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          LGBTQ people and families exist in real life.  Maga folks believe they represent depravity and therefore the mention of their existence could possibly harm or influence school children....Trump exists in reality as president, unfortunately.   He, to MANY, represents actual depravity and immorality but that's just dandy subject material? 

          The Supremes, as usual, open the door to endless chaos through opt- outs.    Legitimate cases can be made to object / opt out of virtually anything and everything in a public school...Trump is just ONE example.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I’m a Republican and a supporter of President Trump’s agenda. In my religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but it also teaches tolerance, not to condone it, but not to encourage it either. Sexual preference is just that, a personal preference. It has no place in the classroom, especially when it conflicts with the religious beliefs held by many families. Most major religions view same-sex relationships as incompatible with their teachings, and introducing such topics in schools can be confusing or even distressing to children who are being raised with those values.

            Education should focus on academics, not personal identity or lifestyle discussions that may contradict what children are being taught at home. People are absolutely free to live how they choose, including in matters of sexual preference, but no one has the right to impose those personal choices on others or on other people’s children through the school system.

            Offering information on a president’s character, no matter how adverse, is very different from promoting a sexual lifestyle that conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs. It seems some believe religion should no longer be considered or respected in these matters, but I am safe to say that those people are in the minority.

            America was founded within a strong Christian cultural framework, but it was not officially established as a Christian nation in the legal or constitutional sense. The Founders built a system that protects religious freedom for everyone, and while many of them came from Christian backgrounds, they made sure no one religion was imposed on the country.

            As a Christian, I want my beliefs to be respected just as I respect the right of any individual to choose their sexual preference. But that respect needs to go both ways. My values matter too, and it’s simple common sense that mutual respect should apply in both directions. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem willing to see it that way.

            I think I went to great lengths to critique the article, explaining why her analogy was very skewed and why it doesn’t hold up when you consider the broader context.

            1. Willowarbor profile image59
              Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Most of what Trump represents, his actions,  display immorality and depravity.  Why shouldn't I have my views respected within the school system?

              What if I'm a Christian scientist? My view is that ailments are a symptom of mental deficiency not a physical problem. Thus, to heal ailments, one usually must rely on prayer rather than medical care.... Why should my view be disrespected within the public school system by the mention of "doctors" ?   My values matter too don't they?

              1. Readmikenow profile image84
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                "What if I'm a Christian scientist? My view is that ailments are a symptom of mental deficiency not a physical problem. Thus, to heal ailments, one usually must rely on prayer rather than medical care.... Why should my view be disrespected within the public school system by the mention of "doctors"

                Then you should have the right to opt out of teachings that don't agree with your beliefs.

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Where does the opt-out end?  To the point that a classroom full of 40 kids is each being separated out due to objection over something?  Taught individually because their parent believes they can't handle the reality of the world? Lol when did we become so soft?

                  1. Kyler J Falk profile image78
                    Kyler J Falkposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Many, "became soft," at the same time the most vicious among the left made it a social crime to explore anything but what they deem to be worthy of exploration.

                    No one is saying don't participate, nor to adopt select-participation as a wide practice, only to give people the right to choose.

                    Being one of those vicious actors on the left, it seems counterintuitive for you not to support freedom of choice as it concerns religion and education.

                    Personally, it isn't even a religious motivation for me not to want my son to be taught about LGBTQIA+ matters until high school. I think it is a young adult-adult issue, not something that needs to be institutionalized for the overwhelming majority, if at all.

                    At most, LGBTQIA+ studies should be a separate elective available to everyone. At least, it can have a small module in health class that does not teach social/political ideology, but physical sciences (which already occurs as a compulsory practice in all mandatory high school health courses).   

                    The main problem here is adults grooming children into parasitic, pathologized ideologies they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, not taking a fat dump on the necessary facet of society that is LGBTQIA+ health and wellness.

            2. Willowarbor profile image59
              Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              The premise of the opinion article??

              Folks believe that LGBTQ lifestyles represent immorality or depravity and therefore should not be acknowledged regardless of the fact that these lifestyles are a reality.

              Trump's actions and  history of actions, his speech and so forth represent immorality and depravity to many regardless of the fact that he is POTUS....but his mention is ok.

              Maga wants me to accept one reality but ignore another...

            3. Willowarbor profile image59
              Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Both arguments invoke morality as a basis for exclusion from educational environments.

              The logical connection between these two arguments rests on the principle of applying a consistent moral standard.

              If the premise for excluding the existence or acknowledgment of  LGBTQ families from schools is their perceived immorality, then the same standard would logically necessitate the exclusion of topics or figures associated with widely documented immoral actions of Trump. 

              The core of the argument is that if a subject is deemed inappropriate for discussion in schools due to its perceived negative moral implications, then other subjects with documented ethical transgressions should be treated similarly.

              The standard must be applied equally and consistently.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                I shared my view, could not be clearer. I will adamantly agree to disagree. The subject goes against my own Christian beliefs.

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "The subject goes against my own Christian beliefs".

                  Well using that same premise....  Trump's words and  actions should just about burn Christian beliefs down to the ground....lying, adultery...let us count the ways.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    The subject or at least the sentence you selected, is perfect." The subject goes against my own Christiam Beliefs"

                    Perhaps you did not read all my words, which indicate my thoughts on sin --- "I’m a Republican and a supporter of President Trump’s agenda. In my religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but it also teaches tolerance, not to condone it, but not to encourage it either. "  Shar

                    Goes for any sins Trump might have committed. I don't weigh sin, I show tolerance to sin and sinners.

                    You may have missed this too ---  "As a Christian, I want my beliefs to be respected just as I respect the right of any individual to choose their sexual preference. But that respect needs to go both ways. My values matter too, and it’s simple common sense that mutual respect should apply in both directions. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem willing to see it that way."

                    It seems you can't understand my thoughts on this subject, or just feel you need to beat a dead horse.

              2. IslandBites profile image70
                IslandBitesposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                You shall not commit adultery.
                You shall not steal.
                You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
                You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

                MAGA morality. lol

                1. Willowarbor profile image59
                  Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yep, again with the hypocrisy...LGBTQ = BAD AND IMMORAL. AGAINST MY BELIEFS.   but Trump....good and aligned with my "Christianity".

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Could you quote anyone here who made that type of claim or even close to it? That kind of comment needs some true evidence.

                2. Readmikenow profile image84
                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Maybe those who condemn President Donald Trump should look at their own lives.

                  Mathew Chapter 7 vs 1 & 2

                  “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

                  Romans 3:23

                  For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

                  1. Willowarbor profile image59
                    Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Lol  then why would you ban children from hearing stories about families just like their own?

                3. Ken Burgess profile image73
                  Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Better than a morality that puts children on hormone blockers and chops off sex organs.

                  One that allows them to eat poisonous chemicals as "food", that tells them they are to blame for the world's end (climate change and carbon) or the myriad of other things pushed by the 'progressive' movements of today in America... to include hating themselves for being American... or white... or male...

                  Nothing to worry about... a nation filled with men that have no purpose... no hope... no beliefs... no attachments... what could go wrong?

                  1. Readmikenow profile image84
                    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Ken,

                    Doesn't it make sense that democrats would have serious issues with the Ten Commandments?

                    I'm sure thou shalt not lie is one they will never accept.  Thou shalt not commit adultery is another they probably have serious issue with.

                    Each and every one of the ten commandments go against every belief held by democrats. 

                    It makes sense they would not want to see these or have them taught to their children.

                  2. Kyler J Falk profile image78
                    Kyler J Falkposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

              3. Readmikenow profile image84
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                This case was not about exclusion, but the rights of parents to not have their children exposed to material they don't agree with.

                So, I say, if any topic offends your religion, parents should have the right to opt out of it.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Then, I should have the right to have my children attend school without a mandatory proclamation that each and everybody wall be covered with Judeo-Christian graffiti.

            4. Ken Burgess profile image73
              Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Forcing others to accept your beliefs is wrong, is it not?

              Is that not the rational that was used to remove prayer from schools?

              LGBTQ+ Pedophilia, transgenderism, 72 different sexes... at best is this nothing more than an individual belief...

              At worst isn't it some form of deviant insanity that can bring irreparable harm to children?

              While teaching children to believe in a God is offensive to some... it is slightly less harmful than convincing them that changing their sex, at a young age, is good. 

              You can recover from being taught about a faith a heck of a lot easier than you can recover from being exposed to hormone blockers or having sex organs removed.

              It is far closer to evil to expose children to the ideology (faith) of LGBTQ+ than it is any of the Bible based faiths I am aware of, IMO.

              Personally, I think many of children between the ages of 5 and 21 in America are screwed up royally... probably more than 50%... and will have little ability to navigate the real world... between 1 out of 7 boys being autistic, 1 out of 4 being obese... its not looking pretty when you add in how many were brainwashed by the LGBTQ+ idiocy of today.

              Pride Month... yeah...

      3. Willowarbor profile image59
        Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        'As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”....

        "Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency....

        How is the "moral message" that LGBTQ folks exist and everything  the right-wing believes they represent  differ from the message of Trump and his ACTUAL depraved morality?

        Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”..... lol  there is nothing in Trump's life or behavior to be celebrated?

        Lol .. a man who is a liar, a man who demeans people? A man who represents the worst in human behavior?     This doesn't coincide with my faith or that of the majority.

        Yep, it's a fact that Trump is President just as it is a fact that LGBTQ folks and families exist.  If you can object to the mention of these people in books because of the morality you believe they represent....I can absolutely apply the same logic to an endless number of things/issues, including dear leader....he certainly doesn't present the "moral message" upon which  Alito bases his opinion LOL

        1. Readmikenow profile image84
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          There are topics that should be discussed in a family's home.  It is not a subject that should be taught in a public school.

          It is not teaching, it is indoctrination to a particular view point.  A view point not held by everyone with children attending a public school.  A view point that is counter to the religious beliefs of many people.

          Now, parents are not going to be forced to have their children read materials that go against their beliefs.  They are going to be able to opt out of such things.

          This is the right of every parent.

          I looked over some of the materials that were part of this lawsuit.  I would NEVER want any of my children to have seen such gross filth in their elementary and middle school years.  Transgender, anal sex, molestation are topics that need to be handled by families.  Not forced to be read about, at such a young age, at school.

          Parents still have a right to raise their children as they see fit.  It's not the job of the state to teach children such things, it are the parents who are responsible for discussing it with their children.

          I'm glad families are now free from attempts at public school indoctrination into lifestyles parents may not agree with.  It is good to be able to follow a religion and not have a parent's children exposed to things that many people find unacceptable.

          1. Willowarbor profile image59
            Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            By no stretch of the imagination is it a subject that is "being taught". Reading a book that acknowledges the existence of families with two mothers or two fathers is no different than reading a book that acknowledges trump, with all of his reprehensible words and actions,  is POTUS....

            1. Readmikenow profile image84
              Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Books about two mothers, two fathers goes against Christian beliefs.

              I don't think there are specific books teaching about President Donald Trump.  Again, can't discuss a topic without obsessing about the 47th president.  TDS getting in the way again.

              I am against LGBTQ indoctrination.  This part of our world is something that needs to be taught and discussed in a home by the parents.

  9. Willowarbor profile image59
    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    Wondering which pillar of Christian virtue this would be?

    https://x.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1677681202969419783

  10. tsmog profile image75
    tsmogposted 6 weeks ago

    From Fox News (Opinion) July 1, 2025 (Today)

    Marijuana is not harmless. The opposite is true and the evidence keeps growing
    As cannabis legalization spreads, mounting research reveals alarming health impacts while promised benefits fail to materialize
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marijua … nag1rpwwma

    Excerpt:

    "The science is clear.

    Even for adults, cannabis isn’t safe, especially for daily use. For teens, whose brains are still developing, it is highly risky – and at worst can lead to lifelong psychiatric problems. It is addictive."

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)