A big indicator of the future is...what cases the Supreme Court declines to hear

One of the obvious telltales to know what direction your betters have ruled we should go is how the Supreme Court rules on crucial cases--because this effectively says what laws will be enforced or overturned, or how vague provisions will be interpreted, for the entire future. 

(For those new to rule-by-judges, EVERY law has several provisions vague enough to allow leftists to file suit--and if they lose in a lower court they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.)

But another telltale is less obvious:  It's the cases appealed to the Supreme Court that the court declines to hear--because in most cases this means the court agrees with the ruling by the lower-court judge.  Which means (almost always) that the SC agrees with the ruling by the lower court judge.

Last Tuesday we saw one of these implicit agreements, as the Supreme Court declined to review a case involving a Pennsylvania school district that quietly allowed transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, following the directive of Obama's department of education [spit!].  It's also significant that the district did this without notifying non-trans students or parents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the "rights" of trans students outweighed any right to privacy by non-trans students.  The appeals court also seemed to be fine with the decision of school adminishits to implement this significant policy change without notifying parents.

It's also interesting that this significant policy change has not yet been put into writing--another indication that administrators were hoping to sneak this in under the radar.

Now:  If you don't have kids in this particular public school system, why is this of any significance to you?

Cuz it means the Supreme Court has decided the "rights" of transgenders--as decreed by a bureaucrat in the DOE, with the approval of Obama, outweigh the right of your daughter to not be forced to undress next to a biological male.

Now, I got no dog in this hunt.  But if you've got daughters or granddaughters, you might.

But don't worry, citizen: Your Democrat betters know what's best for your kids.
===

 [The case in question if you want to read more: Doe v. Boyertown Area School District]