We live in a strange world: Devos and Sessions fight over Trans School Protections

[guacamole]

So. Yeah. I can't even understand this--Is she for trans protections? Is she seeing some angle other people aren't seeing? I presume that when the article says "fight" it means "vigorous, yet professional, discussion."

A fight over an order that would rescind protections for transgender students in public schools has erupted inside the Trump administration, pitting Attorney General Jeff Sessions against the secretary of education, Betsy DeVos.

Ms. DeVos initially resisted signing off on the order and told President Trump that she was uncomfortable with it, according to three Republicans with direct knowledge of the internal discussions. The draft order would reverse the directives put in place last year by the Obama administration to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice.

Mr. Sessions, who strongly opposes expanding gay, lesbian and transgender rights, fought Ms. DeVos on the issue and pressed her to relent because he could not go forward without her consent. The order must come from the Justice and Education Departments.

Mr. Trump sided with his attorney general, these Republicans said, telling Ms. DeVos in a meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he wanted her to drop her objections. And Ms. DeVos, faced with the choice of resigning or defying the president, has agreed to go along.

Now obviously, few people (other Milo ) are the monsters the other side portrays them to be, but this is probably a surprise all the way around. Her opposition doesn't mean much if she goes along with it, I suppose.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Bill the Cat]

Until I hear who these "three Republicans with direct knowledge of the internal discussions" are, I don't buy it.

[guacamole]

Yeah, I get the need for skepticism. And this could turn out to be unfounded rumor for sure. I'm more likely to be suspicious from the angle that they're trying to enhance her image--Devos gets to be good cop and Sessions gets to be bad cop. I'm skeptical of the "fight" idea. There was likely no fight. They were sitting around having a discussion from different angles.

It's still an interesting process to me, watching the sausage get made.

fwiw,
guacamole.

[seer]

Well it is a good thing that they are dropping this inane directive. Let the states decide...

[One Bad Pig]

Huh. Lincoln's cabinet didn't get along too well, and that seemed to turn out okay.

I suspect there will be a lot of this.

[KingsGambit]

I'm not surprised. A week or two ago, Robert Gagnon was blasting Devos on Facebook for being too liberal on the transgender issue.

[Starlight]

It's done. Devos and transgender students lost. The transgender protections have been rescinded.

Sparko was asking about Trump keeping his campaign promises. Well that's one promise in the red Sparko:

trumpLGBT.jpg

I guess the T part in his statement that he'd fight for LGBT people more than Hillary was a typo. Maybe he meant he'd fight them more than Hillary?

Trump in a speech on June 13, 2016, said:

"Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words?"

The correct answer was (b) Hillary, right?

[Bill the Cat]

It's done. Devos and transgender students lost. The transgender protections have been rescinded.

He is giving the authority to the states, where it belongs.

"As President Trump has clearly stated, he believes policy regarding transgender bathrooms should be decided at the state level,"

[Trout]

Homeschool your children!

[Sparko]

It's done. Devos and transgender students lost. The transgender protections have been rescinded.

Sparko was asking about Trump keeping his campaign promises. Well that's one promise in the red Sparko:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21043[/ATTACH]

I guess the T part in his statement that he'd fight for LGBT people more than Hillary was a typo. Maybe he meant he'd fight them more than Hillary?

Trump in a speech on June 13, 2016, said:

"Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words?"

The correct answer was (b) Hillary, right?

how is giving the power to the states bad? they can each decide for themselves. decentralizing government authority and empowering the states has always been a Republican doctrine.

[Starlight]

how is giving the power to the states bad? they can each decide for themselves. decentralizing government authority and empowering the states has always been a Republican doctrine.

While I don't personally think there are any obviously right or wrong answers about how much power should be vested in the federal government vs the state governments, and think that the setup of the the whole thing is to some extent very arbitrary (and am somewhat glad I live in a country that is a single state and so doesn't have multi-level government like that)...

... I observe that in the US 'states rights' has traditionally been code for racism. The idea was that the 'southern' states ought to be allowed to do segregation (and, pre-civil war, slavery). I don't really think your claim that Republicans have had some sort of abstract belief in 'empowering the states' is really true. What Republicans have thought is "we can't seem to get our policies through at a federal level, so as a matter of strategy, let's try them at a state level", and then gone out and said "oh, we totally have a strong belief in states rights!" It's mostly a convenient ploy on their part, not an inherent philosophical belief they hold about state vs federal power - as we've seen with the rise of Trump (and criticism of Obama), many Republicans are very authoritarian and would absolutely love a dictator and hate that the courts dare strike down any commands of their Dear Leader.

And, I note, the first 'Republican' president, Honest Abe, was not exactly known for letting states do their own thing. Quite the opposite in fact, and the federal government under him put its foot down the firmest it ever has in US history.

P.S. There's rumors today of a forthcoming federal crackdown on marijuana. I guess that's not a state issue? Gotta love the consistency.

[shunyadragon]

how is giving the power to the states bad? they can each decide for themselves. decentralizing government authority and empowering the states has always been a Republican doctrine.

If we did that with racial justice we would still have slavery in some states.

[Terraceth]

If we did that with racial justice we would still have slavery in some states.

Slavery might have lasted for a longer period of time, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely it would still be extent today.

[One Bad Pig]

... I observe that in the US 'states rights' has traditionally been code for racism. The idea was that the 'southern' states ought to be allowed to do segregation (and, pre-civil war, slavery).

Your observation is wrong. There were New England states threatening to secede long before the South actually did. States rights were so dominant during the Revolution that the confederate government was nearly powerless.

<snip more fantasy>
And, I note, the first 'Republican' president, Honest Abe, was not exactly known for letting states do their own thing. Quite the opposite in fact, and the federal government under him put its foot down the firmest it ever has in US history.

Lincoln came into office willing to live and let live, but the South threw a collective hissy fit and forced his hand. There were still generally states rights in the states which didn't rebel.

P.S. There's rumors today of a forthcoming federal crackdown on marijuana. I guess that's not a state issue? Gotta love the consistency.

There are all sorts of rumors coming out of the federal government these days; I wouldn't put much stock in them, especially since Trump seems to encourage the airing of opposing viewpoints among his advisors. However, there are, after all, long-standing marijuana laws at the federal level. There's a case to be made for repealing them, but disdaining to enforce a law you don't like isn't very smart from a law enforcement point of view.

[rogue06]

Your observation is wrong. There were New England states threatening to secede long before the South actually did. States rights were so dominant during the Revolution that the confederate government was nearly powerless..

Yup. As far back as the War of 1812 when Federalists from that region met in Hartford, Connecticut and the idea of secession was brought up but the Treaty of Ghent put an end to it.

Even earlier, in 1777, Vermont (which called itself New Connecticut) seceded from New York wanting to be an independent state. After being turned down by Congress for several years they declared themselves an independent country started minting their own money and petitioned Canada about joining them (they were turned down). After that Congress recognized them as a state.