Generally, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been interpreted to mean "if the Constitution doesn't say you can, then you can't". I'm massively summarizing American jurisprudence, but that's the overall gist.
Moreover, restricting rights based on group characteristics (unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself) has come into heavy disfavor since the 14th Amendment was passed and would almost inevitably be struck down by the courts.
Me too. I retired seven years ago, moved across the state, and like my avatar, I bought a boat. My life has never been better. My advice, make sure your house is paid for.
Imagine an action movie where the president is a Black woman (perhaps even a lesbian) and most of the senior staff are women of color. There's the moment in the film where they need to find the "best secret agent" for a mission and that's a retired Black person. This is all presented without comment -- just like every previous movie like this where every role would've likely been filled by a white man.
White male competence is assumed. The best way to counteract this bias is to *assume* competence for other groups.
It frustrates me that Biden created a situation where it looked like KBJ benefitted in the slightest bit from her race and gender whereas Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, did not. Even if we understand that they had, there was no announcement that the pick would be a white middle aged male, perhaps one guilty of sexual assault.
In other words, Dems should just say, "I'm picked the best damn people for these positions" and let them be diverse candidates without comment.
I want to see a younger, more progressive candidate in 2024.
Nor has a real filibuster.
I am concerned that he has health.
She should have had a 30 day mental evaluation during her 3 months off.
I could never stand Schumer.
Constitution doesn't say you can and doesn't say you can't. So do what thou wilt.
In fact, you very much can.
Why didn't the Dems fix the goddam Senate Rules. Only takes a simple majority. I guess the answer here is Manchenema.
Fact.
Generally, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been interpreted to mean "if the Constitution doesn't say you can, then you can't". I'm massively summarizing American jurisprudence, but that's the overall gist.
Moreover, restricting rights based on group characteristics (unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself) has come into heavy disfavor since the 14th Amendment was passed and would almost inevitably be struck down by the courts.
Me too. I retired seven years ago, moved across the state, and like my avatar, I bought a boat. My life has never been better. My advice, make sure your house is paid for.
"The snark is strong in him..." Nice turn of phrase!
To be fair, do Ron Johnson or Tommy Tuberville understand the bills they are voting on? It’s important to keep dementia in perspective.
At least.
Speaking of barely ambulatory corpses, how is Mitch these days?
Imagine an action movie where the president is a Black woman (perhaps even a lesbian) and most of the senior staff are women of color. There's the moment in the film where they need to find the "best secret agent" for a mission and that's a retired Black person. This is all presented without comment -- just like every previous movie like this where every role would've likely been filled by a white man.
White male competence is assumed. The best way to counteract this bias is to *assume* competence for other groups.
It frustrates me that Biden created a situation where it looked like KBJ benefitted in the slightest bit from her race and gender whereas Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, did not. Even if we understand that they had, there was no announcement that the pick would be a white middle aged male, perhaps one guilty of sexual assault.
In other words, Dems should just say, "I'm picked the best damn people for these positions" and let them be diverse candidates without comment.