Leaderboard

I suspect that, in general, SCOTUS nominees are smarter than the politicians who grill them.

This is the same verbatim argument being made in discussion forums everywhere, and highlights the black and white assumptions being made by those arguing against trans people in any sport - that a larger frame is always advantageous, and that the participant always went through a full biological male puberty. And those assumptions are wrong. A trans-woman who had puberty-blockers before transitioning, gets none of those testosterone-based growth advantages. That the examples making headlines are about people who've transitioned later, should not cause us to ignore the available variables here when making policy. If a trans-woman never had that growth advantage, on what basis now do we exclude her from participating in women's sports (if she chooses)? Second assumption - the outrage is almost always aimed at competitors in sports events where strength dominates. But what about where a large frame that no longer has its original supporting muscle mass is now a hinderance? In a gymnastics floor routine, a trans-woman who went through full puberty first is going to have a much, much harder time getting height off the floor - her frame is now a liability, not an advantage. This is a difficult problem, but not an unsolvable one. Anyone who thinks the answer is black and white though is being lazy.

To misquote Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence in Jacobellis vs Ohio: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of person I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know one when I date one.

If you consider that instead of rusting away. Perhaps 10% of them will end up into the side of a Russian armored vehicle. Perhaps NATO should be paying Ukraine a commission for each successful deployment.

Well, here's a surprise - NOT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/28/judge-says-trump-more-than-likely-committeed-crime/ Trump ‘more likely than not’ committed a crime in trying to block congressional confirmation of Biden’s win, federal judge says

The foundation of liberalism is democracy. The USA had a close call recently with its democracy being threatened. Enough Rs refused to succumb, but it was uncomfortably close. As long as leaders are chosen by election and elections are true opportunities to "throw the bums out" liberalism will thrive because it is what the people want everywhere. There is far more to liberalism than social policy and wealth distribution although those are the aspects of it that conservatives oppose. The term "liberal democracy" does not necessarily mean governed by liberals. It means dictators will not be tolerated. There are no true democracies that are not liberal, even when a more conservative party holds power.

Same here. I suggest using a large-handled knife (like the Ripper) and placing the pocket on the front of the thigh on your strong-arm side.

First met her in '84 at The Herd. Good person.

Everyone knows perfectly well that it was a 'gotcha' question. And Jackson's answer of "I'm not a biologist" was a clipped quote of her entire answer. Which basically boiled down to "the definition would depend on the facts of the case being argued." And when Blackburn pressed her, citing a few different SC decisions, Jackson's answer of 'I'm not familiar with the case and I'd have to read the decision before answering' is an entirely appropriate answer. But, again, for a 'gotcha' question, the rabid right wingers see it as 'pandering to the left'. Not to mention that Blackburn told some very blatant lies and mixed and matched SC decisions. Go figure. She wasn't the one under oath (there's a big part of me that would like to see those posing the question in these hearings subject to the same oath and consequences that those giving testimony are). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/23/remarkable-bad-faith-involved-what-is-woman-attack/

However, I will say that I think it would be a devastatingly bad decision for the US to foment or lead in any way any effort to unseat Putin. It was a bad decision in Iraq, and it would be far worse in Russia. Dragged in, like we were in WW2, is probably best in this particular case. Because anything else robs us of more standing. Wendy P.

Nope. She was asked for a definition of "woman." Were they asking for "woman" as defined by the gender "female?" Then it's a question of societal definitions. We are fortunate that we have progressed to the stage where the person, rather than society, has more say in what they decide their gender is. Which means that the person being asked, not the person doing the asking, gets to answer. Is it "woman" as in genetics? Then that's straightforward. XX is female, XY is male. Is it "woman" as in phenotype? (That means 'what they look like.') Then it's a little harder. Many people are born intersex, and are effectively defined as one or the other by surgery. Is it "woman" as in a combination of both? Then it's even more complicated. What about a woman who is born with a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, but is genetically XY? Are they a woman or a man? A doctor (or biologist) is going to have an opinion on that - and they may even disagree. As a judge, she would be remiss if she just assumed one or the other without knowing all the above. Good for her for not giving the easy (and potentially) wrong answer. As a simile, consider three witnesses in a court case. They are all asked if they saw a woman at the scene of the crime. Witness 1 says "yes," Witness 2 says "I saw someone who looked like a woman." Witness 3 said "I saw the back of someone with long brown hair wearing a blue dress." Justice is most likely served when person 3 testifies.

Same thing only different. I am not super disappointed by the remark but it wasn't necessary. Biden has done an amazing job of coalescing NATO after Trumps blunders. There was no need to cause our European partners to wonder about our Presidents diplomatic capacities.

Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological I had a friend who was born intersex (both sets). Her parents decided they wanted a boy, so that’s what the surgery left behind. But she said she never, ever, felt like a man, even back when that was ridiculous and unacceptable. So to make herself into one, she joined the army and became a Ranger. Career, decorated, invalided in the long run because of battle-incurred injuries and agent orange. She sired children. After going back to school for a master’s and teaching college a few years, she couldn’t take it, and went for transition surgery. A lifetime of living honestly as a man wasn’t enough. Enough testosterone to sire children wasn’t enough. Because her birth certificate had the word “intersex” on it, the Army paid for her transition surgery. Her status is why the legal question is different from the biological one. And there are plenty like her. Not all intersex, but all just knowing something is wrong. How dare you assume you understand her situation in ways she doesn’t. I doubt she would judge your decision to remain male Wendy P.

Now the previous POTUS has been asked what he would do if he were still President: 'Well what I would do, is I would -- we would -- we have tremendous military capability. And what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they’re doing an amazing job,' he said. Now remember, you voted for those coherent thoughts, but are upset that the current VP doesn't meet your coherency standards. Explain to me again how you are objectively reviewing this....

Looking from the outside it's fascinating how americans insist on being ruled by a minority. - Electoral college - Gerrymandering - Fillibuster

She was tested for President and the results came back negative. Actually, the results were quite positive. More Americans voted for her than for her opponent.

I you really wanted someone whose portfolio qualifies them uniquely for VP or POTUS, that would be Hillary Clinton.

12 reserve rides on 5 R.I. rigs in a variety of configurations. Perfect deployments every time. Thanks, Sandy and family.

Gotta tell you but you are neither funny or interesting anymore. It's no surprise so many here have you blocked, You must be proud.

You quoted my post, so maybe you're asking what canopy I'm jumping; I just upsized to a Stiletto 150 from a 135 (I'm getting older...). I've been jumping awhile, so I'm pretty comfortable with my choices. Wendy P.