Obama-appointed judge rules a tranny may use any restroom--despite Obama-decreed policy being rescinded

Federal judges make dumb-ass rulings (note well that word) every day, so one more in an infinitely long list normally wouldn't be worth bringing to your attention.  But this one jumped out at me, because it's one of the clearest examples of how Democrats who are bent on destroying the U.S. as you've known it fix the system to get results they want.

My second goal here is to show you how malicious judges routinely twist an innocuous law or constitutional amendment--passed decades earlier-- to support rulings never intended by the people who originally crafted the law or amendment.

The judge in this case is Arenda Lauretta Wright Allen--appointed to the federal bench--for life--in 2010 by Barack Hussein Obama.  She was confirmed by the sleepy senate 96-0 in May of 2011.

Her first major ruling came in a case a lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2013 by two gay men, seeking to overturn a constitutional amendment passed by Virginia voters in 2006.  (Note that this was before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was now legal in every state.)





                   Obama-appointed Arenda Wright Allen

Wright Allen issued her ruling in February of 2014.  She claimed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution demanded her ruling.  Here's the relevant text:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

The problem, from the plaintiffs' standpoint, is that the amendment Virginians passed to their own state's constitution didn't contravene any provision of the U.S. Constitution, nor U.S. law.  In other words the plaintiffs weren't deprived of life, liberty or property.  But of course Allen had no trouble disposing of that objection, cuz...reasons.

Of course just 16 months later (June, 2015) the Supreme Court essentially ratified this decision, making gay marriage legal.  So...makes Allen's ruling not worth getting concerned about, eh?

Well...to illustrate how much actual "legal reasoning" went into Allen's ruling, consider this:  her written ruling Allen wrongly claimed that the statement "that all men are created equal" was in the Constitution.  It's actually in the Declaration of Independence.

Now:  I'd guess that half of all Americans wouldn't know which of those two documents contained that statement.  But you'd think a federal judge--who purports to base a radical decision overturning an amendment to a state's constitution--would know better.

But even more telling is this:  In taking months to write her written ruling in this case, Allen didn't bother to verify that her claim that the Constitution contained her key statement was accurate. 

This should show how much her ruling was politically driven rather than being based on actual legal reasoning.

And Allen wasn't done yet:  Yesterday Allen RULED in favor of a female-to-male transgender student who had sued a school system demanding to use the mens' restroom.

For those who aren't legal junkies, the assertion that schools had to allow trannies to use whichever restroom they chose came from a "Dear Colleague" decree letter Obama's Department of Education sent to all school systems.  The letter explicitly threatened to withhold federal funds from any school system that refused to obey.

Wait, it gets more illegal: The letter unilaterally decreed that the D-Ed interpreted the much-ballyhooed "Title IX"--which prohibits school from discriminating on the basis of SEX--as applying equally to transgenders.  But of course this is NOT what the actual, y'know, LAW says.

Hmm...how interesting.  Translation by team Obama's D-Ed:  "Any law can be stretched by us to have any effect we wish."

One month after Trump was inaugurated--February of 2017--sanity briefly returned, as the D-Ed rescinded the letter and its illegal policies.  But of course to Democrats, bureaucracy rulings made under Obama's reign simply cannot be undone by a ruling made under Trump.  Cuz, reasons.  How...predictable.

In any case: Four years ago trannie student Gavin Grimm sued her (now allegedly "his") school system, demanding to be allowed to use the mens' room.  Friday Judge Allen ruled in her/his favor, thus supporting the "Dear Colleague" policy created by Obama's Department of Education.

Here's the thing:  The letter, and the policy, were rescinded in February of 2017, so over two years ago.  Usually, when laws are changed after a suit is filed, judges will dismiss the suit as being "mooted."  But clearly Allen didn't do that, issuing a long opinion supporting the trans plaintiff.

WE WON!  The district court in @GavinGrimmVA 's case just issued a final judgment in his favor on all his claims. pic.twitter.com/EHv9F86pzT

— Joshua Block (@JoshABlock) August 9, 2019

Now, I couldn't care less if people want to declare themselves natives of the planet Zargon.  The two problems I'm calling your attention to are a) leftist judges expanding old laws to accomplish their political goals; b) leftist judges issuing opinions on cases that have presumably been mooted by the agency in question rescinding the previous illegal policy.

And this sort of crap happens all the time.

Plaintiff, a female claiming to be male