zeke5123a
4hr ago
If the argument that using foreigners and aliens is to clarify that children borne of diplomats who happen to be U.S. citizens as well, then that moves me not at all.
zeke5123a
4hr ago
It isn’t dispositive but it is instructive. That is, if the answer is “obvious” then how did the drafter understand it to mean something else? That is at least a clue that it isn’t obvious.
zeke5123a
4hr ago
Your construction makes no sense. First, the punctuation would be wrong. Second, describing diplomats as foreigners and aliens would be surplusage on top of surplusage.
zeke5123a
6hr ago
Re trans and sports.
Read this ESPN article. It is a lesson in how to editorialize a purported “straight” news story (no pun intended).
zeke5123a
6hr ago
And kavanaugh? Maybe that should make you pause and think perhaps your position isn’t air tight.
zeke5123a
6hr ago
This reminds me of Obamacare. Everyone was told “not a real issue” as the received wisdom was “clear” but when you actually look at the received wisdom it just isn’t clear.
zeke5123a
1d ago
Isn’t that part of the point? Mr. Bennett is a weak man who married the uncouth but gorgeous party girl. He made a bad choice but never had the spine to guide her to a better path.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Well, you are also missing the category where if you are an old grizzled cop you can revoke the immunity after shooting the criminal diplomat.
zeke5123a
3d ago
But the question is if an Indian was off the reservation and gave birth would the child be a US citizen? It is far from clear the answer was yes meaning it is entirely relevant to the question of birthright citizenship.
zeke5123a
3d ago
It isn’t obvious to me. Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein both have laid out strong reasoners why this wasn’t the case. Likewise, it wasn’t obvious to Dick Posner why constitutionally this was required.
The real question in my mind was whether the change to the civil rights act language was designed to grant birthright citizenship.
zeke5123a
3d ago
Lisa cook pretty clearly lied on her mortgage application. Sure she hasn’t been indicted but it doesn’t follow that the same burden of proof applies to a for cause firing.
It also seems clear she plagiarized. It would be interesting if Trump fired her for that on the basis that she was appointed in part for her academic “success” which is fraudulent.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I’m not sure you can describe the demise of Humphrey’s executor as “is this even the same constitution.”
First, the union got by for about 150 years prior to it. Second, the court has routinely cabined the scope of that ruling for years heavily narrowing its scope. Sure striking it will be meaningful but not earth shattering.
zeke5123a
6d ago
It is common knowledge that women would fuck dogs for Dubai elite. I think it’s the demeaning attitude
zeke5123a
7d ago
I find the substack article to be not very good either. It makes a claim that rape gangs are unlikely because of the very few number of defendants. But that was part of the whole scandal (ie authorities kept looking the other way).
zeke5123a
7d ago
I think the other poster was taking the piss about the misspelling of Lowe’s name.
zeke5123a
7d ago
A rape dog in the context of a rape gang seems less absurd compared to a rape dog in the context of a military agency.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Bostock was not logical. The question is what did the words of the civil rights law mean (not quite the same as intent). It seems obviously clear that in the 1960s the words had a specific meaning and we then used a meaning in the 2020s to read into the historic statutes a specific requirement.
Stated differently, nobody but nobody would have believed in the 60s that the law passed created Bostock. Once you accept that, you have to believe that the meaning of law can change overtime.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Citing employers free association rights are rich when they will get sued by the government for creating a hostile work environment if they for example didn’t want trans.
zeke5123a
7d ago
There is no gender/sex distinction. Famously, Matt Walsh asked “what is a woman?”. Self ID doesn’t get you there because unless you have a platonic form there is no way one can in fact identify as a woman (what is someone identifying with if there is no form). So the only possible coherence is to look at the platonic form of a female and see if women maps onto it.
But then trans folks are basically claiming that doing certain activities are the defining form of being a woman (again if there is any coherence to trans ideology — one could say there are many ways to be a woman but trans people need there to be a platonic form). And by doing so, by saying “women are X, Y, and Z” trans folks are basically telling a bunch of females that they actually aren’t a woman (unlike the trans “woman” who is male). That is patently ridiculous. No, the woman who was born with women’s characteristics shouldn’t be told she isnt a woman by a confused man. Being a woman (based on sex) is easily defined and generally has worked for society for ages; yes there are extreme edge cases but far fewer than if the trans incoherence was adopted.
So even if you take the weak form of trans claims, they still fall apart into incoherent delusions since the only way to make any sense of gender is by tying it in to sex and therefore breaking the alleged binary.
Sure but Roberts for unknown reasons reached the constitutional issue when he needed just statutory.
More options
Context Copy link