California AG’s response to a CA ruling on ‘gender transitions’ in schools is dumb
(There is a) ruling out of California, which restored parental rights when it came time to children in the school system and any potential "gender" transitions. ........ a judge just ruled that constitutionally, parents have a right to know if their child is "transitioning" at school, and therefore, teachers and administrators can't hide any "transitioning" from parents, putting an end (at least temporarily) to what's been standard operating procedure in public schools.
.............what struck me was the response from the state AG's office after the ruling, and it deserved a blog on its own. Here's an excerpted portion of the response, via an item at Mercury News:
'We believe that the district court misapplied the law and that the decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal,' a spokesperson for Bonta's office said in an email Tuesday.
This statement can be one of two things: Either the AG office needs to take a Civics 101 class, or its lawyers are being intentionally deceptive.
As I see it, the attorney general's office used the word "law" to seemingly describe what had been halted by the judge; interestingly though it wasn't a law, but something called Parental Exclusion Policies, implemented by the school district being sued. And laws and bureaucratic rules are two entirely different things.
These rules didn't come from the legislature, therefore they're objectively not law; they came from the school district, and school districts aren't lawmaking bodies. If this is the meaning behind the statement, then it means a civics class is needed, and stat...........