Why would a leftist judge bother with opposing opinion? What we're getting out of courtrooms is as vile and stilted toward one viewpoint as everything else everywhere else in this society. A stable society can't function this way.
When you place the inmates in charge of the asylum, you should anticipate that changes MAY occur. But then, if you put inmates in charge, maybe YOU were a few bricks shy of a load to start with.
Our judicial system, which depends upon the good faith of judges, is irretrievably broken. Without morality or religion to cabin a judge and litigants, as John Adams said, man will drive through our Constitution and laws like a whale through a net.
“ The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. ” — Thomas Jefferson
He wrote this when politicians prayed openly together in Congress.
If the judge does not read the documents, they don't exist. Just like when you were a kid and thought that closing your eyes made you invisible. The MSM has been doing this for years, ignoring inconvenient facts and events in the magical belief that they can create reality and take the rest of us along for the ride.
If the judge doesn't read the documents, specifically only the documents from one side, isn't that malfeasance, or at the very least misfeasance? I realize this wasn't a judgment on the case, but still, to base any decision on only considering one side of the argument, when the other side did present one, wow!
Personally, I would say the judge went not with his feelings, but with his corruption. Or, at the very least, his incompetence.
it tells you a lot about modern California that the only way to keep the state from giving your child a sex change behind your back is to hope men from other countries come and save the day. California is, and shall remain, on the cutting edge of decivilization.
Agreed. I know one Muslim family that sends their kids to Christian schools, without hesitation, to avoid the amoral nihilistic government schools. (We should be calling these government schools from now on, as some wise person pointed out.)
Why have the traditional social restraints against conspicuous bias broken down in so short a time? All around us DA's, prosecutors, judges, not to mention the more ordinary government bureaucrats entrusted with unique power, have all slipped the bonds of decency. The people must come up with some disincentive for this kind of action. Maybe disincentive is too mild a word. How about punishment?
Nothing else matters to our ruling class (and this includes just about everyone in any kind of managerial role, whether public or private) than the counter-revolt against the 2016 Peasants' Rebellions. There is a giant walled castle being built throughout the West and if you want to be warm and snug on the inside (where all the loot is), you must swear fealty to the new ruling religion of Social Justice and make sure to be seen publicly doing so. (Need to show your colors!)
Our future is a party-state a la the CCP and if you want to eat (and your kids too) you must be a loyal obedient member of the Party.
I know this sounds a tad overheated but I think it explains everything.
if you haven't read this, is well worth the time (it's quite long and really should be or have been a book).
TL/DR: a postdemocratic bureaucratic progressive technocracy is being installed throughout the West, to be owned and operated by the globalist oligarchy and all its NGO tentacles and willing commissars.
So much normalcy thrown out the window so quickly and apparently without pushback or consequence emboldened people to extend that revolutionary logic to all aspects of life, not just public health.
It was a declaration of Open Season on decency and normalcy.
That's why places like Texas and Florida that stayed normal during COVID also stayed normal about so many other things. Normal does normal; Maoist Red Guards will mau-mau anything in sight.
Can you give me an example of how that would work in this case? Or how it might work in the case of the courts that refuse to hear cases on election integrity?
Say what you (dis)like about Trump, but he left us with a true gift: None of this matters when this thing makes it to SCOTUS and the majority of Constitutionally oriented judges toss this nonsense like they are sifting bad apples from a barrel.
The Chino Valley case is about parental rights, for which there a huge volume of precedent that would be impossible to ignore. You'd need Roe-like abandonment of judicial principles to create some sort of framework to justify the state's interest in keeping the parent's interest secondary. Just can't see that happening.
Thanks for clarifying. I misread his website, looked like he was running for election. Yes, he is a little outgunned as Republicans only hold 18 out of 80 seats.
Chino Valley needs to moot this ruling out by rescinding their existing parental notification policy and passing a modified one.
The modified policy should specify that the school will notify a student's parents in writing if the student changes his names / pronouns / bathrooms / etc., unless the school principal develops a good faith belief that the child would be abused by his/her parents as a consequence of such notification. However, if the principal declines parental notification on such grounds, he *must* immediately inform the county sheriff of all the facts and circumstances of the case. If a kid is in danger in a truly unsafe home then the proper authorities need to get involved!
That will light some fires!
Seriously, if the county sheriff keeps hearing that kids in one particular classroom in one particular school keep coming out as *secret* trans (that is, trans *and* afraid of their parents), they might just swear our a warrant in front of some judge to ignore all the parents and seize the pervy teacher's computer and smartphone.
After all, the same parents who elected this school board are also electing the county sheriff.
You've just showed me another hole in my own discussion of this topic, because the Chino Valley policy already addresses the possibility of abuse, and includes a reminder that school officials are mandatory reporters. I'll write about this today.
Yes, the existing Chino policy has basically a "reminder" at the end saying school officials are mandatory reporters in cases of child abuse, etc., and need to keep following those rules. I saw that. The point I'm proposing is to make parents the presumptive first choice and also to eliminate any possible daylight between "tell the parents" and "call the cops." Any case of in-school trans triggers one or the other report.
Morally, the whole pro-groomer argument is absurd and in bad faith, because we already have rules and procedures to deal with the rare instances of parents who really are dangerous to their kids, and in all other cases parents are presumptively trusted. You deal with bad parents by calling in established child protective service agencies, not by keeping sexual secrets at school. We already know that.
Arguably, the current Chino policy only allows for two options: (1) tell the parents; (2) tell the parents *and* the cops / child protective services. I don't think this is the wrong set of choices, but in light of the court ruling you have to adapt. My proposeal would allow a school principal to omit parents from option (2), and would make sure the local sheriff wad copied on any reports.
I propose this because I think the in-school trans groomers really don't want the cops (especially not a directly elected sheriff) alerted each time they've alienated a sexually confused child from his / her parents and are moving in for the kill. It will have a chilling effect on this kind of predation. That's a good result, but I think they'd try to create workarounds.
It doesn't take that fancy a law degree to invent some hypothetical middle class of cases that doesn't trigger existing state law abuse reporting mandates but is deemed serious enough to trigger the court -required exemption from informing the parents. This would allow for a population of kids with sexual secrets at school. So a revised policy shouldn't just have language that refers to existing mandatory abuse reporting rules; it should also have additional specific language making clear there's no gap between parental reporting and sheriff reporting - any case of in-school trans triggers *one or the other* external report; there are no secrets that stay entirely within school walls.
This is second best relative to the current policy, but it works around the putative concern for "outing trans kids to bad parents who will then hit them" by making parental notification the presumptive first choice, but using backup sheriff reporting for those cases in which this court ruling won't allow parental notification as a means to strike some fear into the hearts of the kiddie groomers that their predatory behavior will be exposed and investigated.
Hey Chris. My kids attend enrichment classes in the Chino Valley area. Drive through the area and you get hit with the sweet pungent scent of cows 😂 and see many American flags. Also, having gone to school in hacienda heights I benefited greatly from academic competition with my primarily Asian classmates. I don’t know the numbers but I know from spending time in Chino Hills / Chino area, there’s a similar population.
Why would a leftist judge bother with opposing opinion? What we're getting out of courtrooms is as vile and stilted toward one viewpoint as everything else everywhere else in this society. A stable society can't function this way.
For what definition of "function"?
When you place the inmates in charge of the asylum, you should anticipate that changes MAY occur. But then, if you put inmates in charge, maybe YOU were a few bricks shy of a load to start with.
Our judicial system, which depends upon the good faith of judges, is irretrievably broken. Without morality or religion to cabin a judge and litigants, as John Adams said, man will drive through our Constitution and laws like a whale through a net.
“ The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. ” — Thomas Jefferson
He wrote this when politicians prayed openly together in Congress.
How can you issue a ruling without reading all the briefs? Make this make sense.
Much as healthcare is based on patient's financial health, most modern "jurisprudence' seems to be based on political affiliation.
Who needs to read a brief when one can see at a glance that the author is a 'white supremacist'.
If the judge does not read the documents, they don't exist. Just like when you were a kid and thought that closing your eyes made you invisible. The MSM has been doing this for years, ignoring inconvenient facts and events in the magical belief that they can create reality and take the rest of us along for the ride.
If the judge doesn't read the documents, specifically only the documents from one side, isn't that malfeasance, or at the very least misfeasance? I realize this wasn't a judgment on the case, but still, to base any decision on only considering one side of the argument, when the other side did present one, wow!
Personally, I would say the judge went not with his feelings, but with his corruption. Or, at the very least, his incompetence.
This is going to blow up in their faces.
It's only a matter of time before Muslim men show up in mass in these court rooms.
it tells you a lot about modern California that the only way to keep the state from giving your child a sex change behind your back is to hope men from other countries come and save the day. California is, and shall remain, on the cutting edge of decivilization.
Interesting point. Telling lies and dividing families is another path to radicalizing people.
Agreed. I know one Muslim family that sends their kids to Christian schools, without hesitation, to avoid the amoral nihilistic government schools. (We should be calling these government schools from now on, as some wise person pointed out.)
I like, State Schools.
They are just devices of the State.
White men and women should not be hiding behind minorities and hoping that they will do their fighting for them.
Can you share an example?
I am replying to an example. "Wait until Muslim parents get involved! Then it will stop!"
Your words not mine.
I'm commenting on past history.
The left are scared to death by Muslim men.
Sept 20th, this is happening.....Million March 4 Children Live With Kamel El-Cheikh
https://handsoffourkids.ca/
https://rumble.com/v3erohf-million-march-4-children-live-with-kamel-el-cheikh.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Laura-Lynn+Tyler+Thompson&ep=2
Why have the traditional social restraints against conspicuous bias broken down in so short a time? All around us DA's, prosecutors, judges, not to mention the more ordinary government bureaucrats entrusted with unique power, have all slipped the bonds of decency. The people must come up with some disincentive for this kind of action. Maybe disincentive is too mild a word. How about punishment?
Nothing else matters to our ruling class (and this includes just about everyone in any kind of managerial role, whether public or private) than the counter-revolt against the 2016 Peasants' Rebellions. There is a giant walled castle being built throughout the West and if you want to be warm and snug on the inside (where all the loot is), you must swear fealty to the new ruling religion of Social Justice and make sure to be seen publicly doing so. (Need to show your colors!)
Our future is a party-state a la the CCP and if you want to eat (and your kids too) you must be a loyal obedient member of the Party.
I know this sounds a tad overheated but I think it explains everything.
Wish I could disagree, CP, but it seems that is indeed where we are headed.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence
if you haven't read this, is well worth the time (it's quite long and really should be or have been a book).
TL/DR: a postdemocratic bureaucratic progressive technocracy is being installed throughout the West, to be owned and operated by the globalist oligarchy and all its NGO tentacles and willing commissars.
Downloaded when posted. Lyons recommended it be, "Read with a stiff drink."
Very much worth the read.
is still imprinted on my brain!
Not overheated, CP, but spot on based on the madness occurring all around us.
COVID.
That's the proximate cause, anyway.
So much normalcy thrown out the window so quickly and apparently without pushback or consequence emboldened people to extend that revolutionary logic to all aspects of life, not just public health.
It was a declaration of Open Season on decency and normalcy.
That's why places like Texas and Florida that stayed normal during COVID also stayed normal about so many other things. Normal does normal; Maoist Red Guards will mau-mau anything in sight.
“Screw your freedoms” -- A. Schwarzenegger
So where does one turn when the courts are captured?
Frederick Douglas offered this opinion: "A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."
I suppose that was his way of saying the quiet part out loud.
Do not comply.
Can you give me an example of how that would work in this case? Or how it might work in the case of the courts that refuse to hear cases on election integrity?
Teachers can telephone the parents of the child in question and talk to them about what they are seeing. We're not talking about elections.
Now that is the question.
Say what you (dis)like about Trump, but he left us with a true gift: None of this matters when this thing makes it to SCOTUS and the majority of Constitutionally oriented judges toss this nonsense like they are sifting bad apples from a barrel.
Not convinced it would be a slam dunk ruling at the SC level. I refer you to Gorsuch’s opinion on the Title Nine case and gender identity.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-relies-on-gorsuchs-bostock-opinion-in-telling-federal-agencies-title-ix-anti-discrimination-protections-apply-to-gay-and-transgender-students/
Very different part of the law.
The Chino Valley case is about parental rights, for which there a huge volume of precedent that would be impossible to ignore. You'd need Roe-like abandonment of judicial principles to create some sort of framework to justify the state's interest in keeping the parent's interest secondary. Just can't see that happening.
I would hope it doesn't have to go that far, but Bill Essayli shares this view.
https://twitter.com/billessayli/status/1699482029216391535
Huh. How about that? Sanity noises emanating from some dusty, deeply discounted corner of the CA Assembly.
So he’s running for state office? Does he have any chance of winning?
Are there any other school districts in California that are following or planning on following the Chino Valley policy?
Would be interested to see them bury the AG with dozens of these cases.
He holds a state office -- he's a Republican assemblyman in an Assembly that has a Democratic supermajority.
Thanks for clarifying. I misread his website, looked like he was running for election. Yes, he is a little outgunned as Republicans only hold 18 out of 80 seats.
This guy Essayli is a gem!
I’ll defer to your greater knowledge and expertise. Just don’t have much faith or confidence in our current judicial system, from top to bottom.
I'm not sure the deference is warranted, but the lack of faith or confidence certainly is.
And just another reason I will not be attending my 50th HS reunion this Saturday in Claremont. Can’t support a state that is so far off the rails.
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
---
The "SCREW YOUR FREEDOMS" RINO Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?
He is a piece of you know what!
A giant piece.
Just say it!!! Piece of shhhhh—-
remember the left calling him an Austrian nazi? BWAHAHA!
Thanks Chris - This is much bigger than we realize - the tyrants are slamming California hard to soften up the whole country...
Chino Valley needs to moot this ruling out by rescinding their existing parental notification policy and passing a modified one.
The modified policy should specify that the school will notify a student's parents in writing if the student changes his names / pronouns / bathrooms / etc., unless the school principal develops a good faith belief that the child would be abused by his/her parents as a consequence of such notification. However, if the principal declines parental notification on such grounds, he *must* immediately inform the county sheriff of all the facts and circumstances of the case. If a kid is in danger in a truly unsafe home then the proper authorities need to get involved!
That will light some fires!
Seriously, if the county sheriff keeps hearing that kids in one particular classroom in one particular school keep coming out as *secret* trans (that is, trans *and* afraid of their parents), they might just swear our a warrant in front of some judge to ignore all the parents and seize the pervy teacher's computer and smartphone.
After all, the same parents who elected this school board are also electing the county sheriff.
Win-win!
You've just showed me another hole in my own discussion of this topic, because the Chino Valley policy already addresses the possibility of abuse, and includes a reminder that school officials are mandatory reporters. I'll write about this today.
Yes, the existing Chino policy has basically a "reminder" at the end saying school officials are mandatory reporters in cases of child abuse, etc., and need to keep following those rules. I saw that. The point I'm proposing is to make parents the presumptive first choice and also to eliminate any possible daylight between "tell the parents" and "call the cops." Any case of in-school trans triggers one or the other report.
Morally, the whole pro-groomer argument is absurd and in bad faith, because we already have rules and procedures to deal with the rare instances of parents who really are dangerous to their kids, and in all other cases parents are presumptively trusted. You deal with bad parents by calling in established child protective service agencies, not by keeping sexual secrets at school. We already know that.
Arguably, the current Chino policy only allows for two options: (1) tell the parents; (2) tell the parents *and* the cops / child protective services. I don't think this is the wrong set of choices, but in light of the court ruling you have to adapt. My proposeal would allow a school principal to omit parents from option (2), and would make sure the local sheriff wad copied on any reports.
I propose this because I think the in-school trans groomers really don't want the cops (especially not a directly elected sheriff) alerted each time they've alienated a sexually confused child from his / her parents and are moving in for the kill. It will have a chilling effect on this kind of predation. That's a good result, but I think they'd try to create workarounds.
It doesn't take that fancy a law degree to invent some hypothetical middle class of cases that doesn't trigger existing state law abuse reporting mandates but is deemed serious enough to trigger the court -required exemption from informing the parents. This would allow for a population of kids with sexual secrets at school. So a revised policy shouldn't just have language that refers to existing mandatory abuse reporting rules; it should also have additional specific language making clear there's no gap between parental reporting and sheriff reporting - any case of in-school trans triggers *one or the other* external report; there are no secrets that stay entirely within school walls.
This is second best relative to the current policy, but it works around the putative concern for "outing trans kids to bad parents who will then hit them" by making parental notification the presumptive first choice, but using backup sheriff reporting for those cases in which this court ruling won't allow parental notification as a means to strike some fear into the hearts of the kiddie groomers that their predatory behavior will be exposed and investigated.
More evidence that we don't live in a democracy with institutions as they are supposed to function.
How does this end, with more proclamations and less pretense that we have any rights as citizens.
Did he admit he did not read them? Cuz that's not so smart.
Hey Chris. My kids attend enrichment classes in the Chino Valley area. Drive through the area and you get hit with the sweet pungent scent of cows 😂 and see many American flags. Also, having gone to school in hacienda heights I benefited greatly from academic competition with my primarily Asian classmates. I don’t know the numbers but I know from spending time in Chino Hills / Chino area, there’s a similar population.
I grew up in Walnut. Totally.
Called it.
Sadly.