Dumb Political Correctness

Pop country group Lady Antebellum changes their name to "Lady A" to be more woke. And they f'ed it up by pissing off a blues singer (a black woman) who has gone by Lady A for 20 years. Lol. Link.

You can't make this **** up. I'm starting to think our species isn't going to make it. How many times can we "out-stupid" ourselves and keep surviving?
 
As I’ve heard somewhere it sounds like “the end is near” and it’s getting frightening.
I’ve been willing to separate Texas football and my Longhorn fanaticism from the blasted liberalism of academia and Austin but they’re moving beyond even my tolerance with the new lunacy.
 
Supreme Court rules that federal civil rights laws cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Haven't read the opinion yet so not yet ready to get pissed off.

Link.

Roberts and Gorsuch joined the liberals.
 
"They conceded that sexual orientation was not on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed"

This is why original intent is important and why textual nonsense allows these people to interpret any wording the way they want.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Supreme Court rules that federal civil rights laws cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Haven't read the opinion yet so not yet ready to get pissed off.

Link.

Roberts and Gorsuch joined the liberals.
Click to expand...
Also have not read the Opinion. Saw the syllabus which indicated that it could not be the ONLY reason for termination. Presuming the Opinion goes along that general direction, what you will see is an upswing in the poor performance evaluation which does THEN give rise to the termination.

I am hoping that the tranny portion of the dicta does not give cover to the ones who are not actually transsexual. An employee should not be permitted to show up in a costume a few days a week. If they are actually under medical care with a professional, then at least they were committed to their decision...but I have ZERO respect for an employee that shows up as John three days a week and dresses like Jane the other two, expecting to be granted access to women's spaces...
 
Garmel said:
"They conceded that sexual orientation was not on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed"

This is why original intent is important and why textual nonsense allows these people to interpret any wording the way they want.
Click to expand...

The idea of textualism is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpreta-
tion of Legal Texts 16 (2012). Gorsuch didn't do that.

The problem isn't textualism. The problem is using a fraudulent textualist analysis to reach an activist, extratextual result, and that's what the Court did. I'm disgusted with Roberts and Gorsuch, and this opinion is going to make me second guess and doubt pretty much everything they do from this point on.

And you'll notice the liberal justices didn't give a crap about how the result was reached. They aren't even alleged textualists and would never follow an analysis like Gorsuch applied to any case when it goes against their preferred outcomes. They just let the conservatives fight over the issue, found the opinion that went the way they liked and joined it. They didn't even write concurring opinions. The result was all they cared about.

Why even write laws down anymore? Let's just let the Supreme Court make our laws up as they go along.
 
mb227 said:
Also have not read the Opinion. Saw the syllabus which indicated that it could not be the ONLY reason for termination. Presuming the Opinion goes along that general direction, what you will see is an upswing in the poor performance evaluation which does THEN give rise to the termination.
Click to expand...

I read it, and it's a ******** decision. I know that it could one day be useful to you if an employer acts unfairly to you, so if you like it on some level, I get that. However, it's a bad decision if we care what the laws say and what lawmakers mean.

It didn't go with a sole or only reason angle. (To be fair, it's not supposed to. Title VII is broader than that. It is a but-for causation standard, and there can be many but-for causes. It's not like the Texas common law wrongful termination causation analysis we see in the Sabine Pilot Texas Supreme Court decision from the 1980s.) What it did to force the outcome was blur sexual orientation and gender identity with sex by basically saying that because you wouldn't fire a woman who likes to have sex with dudes and likes to wear a bra and panties, it would be sex discrimination to fire a guy who likes to have sex with dudes and likes to wear a bra a panties. It was obviously a lot more verbose than that, but that's the decision in a nutshell.

mb227 said:
I am hoping that the tranny portion of the dicta does not give cover to the ones who are not actually transsexual. An employee should not be permitted to show up in a costume a few days a week. If they are actually under medical care with a professional, then at least they were committed to their decision...but I have ZERO respect for an employee that shows up as John three days a week and dresses like Jane the other two, expecting to be granted access to women's spaces...
Click to expand...

It intentionally avoided that angle. However, unless Gorsuch and Roberts are willing to completely ignore their analysis in this case, we're going to have chicks with dicks in the ladies room and in their showers. The reason why is that there are a ton of federal and state laws that prohibit sex discrimination in a myriad of contexts including in schools and public accommodations. Courts tend to try to interpret the same words with consistency across statutes. In light of that, I don't see how they would reach a different outcome.
 
The problem isn't textualism. The problem is using a fraudulent textualist analysis to reach an activist, extratextual result, and that's what the Court did. I'm disgusted with Roberts and Gorsuch, and this opinion is going to make me second guess and doubt pretty much everything they do from this point on.
Click to expand...

Deez, you mean like Roberts vote against those churches meeting? JK.

This is the same crap Roberts pulled in the Obamacare ruling. He combined things loosely that didn't match, when he labeled fines as a tax. Then made his ruling based on garbled logic.
 
Best front page in America
I dont know how they avoid cancel culture
They must throw the dogs a bone every now and then
EaoS-maWoAEbWn6
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
The Cancel Culture people are also trying to get Tucker Carlson kicked off the air
Which was only a matter of time I guess
These people spend alot of time calling anyone who disagrees with them on any topic Nazis and Fascists
But if you look at actual behavior, they are the ones who behave like the Brownshirts
They physically assault
They take and destroy property
They burn books
They constantly attempt to shut down dissent and silence other people
They get speakers banned, get people fired, cancel shows - it is the modern equivalent of making people they do not like wear a star of david.
They will be loading us into railroad cars soon enough
Click to expand...

Now cancel culture is coming for Gundy
Why?
Because of a t-shirt he wore on a fishing trip
If you dont know, Chubba is Gundy's star starting tailback
 
Mr. Deez said:
The problem isn't textualism. The problem is using a fraudulent textualist analysis to reach an activist, extratextual result, and that's what the Court did. I'm disgusted with Roberts and Gorsuch, and this opinion is going to make me second guess and doubt pretty much everything they do from this point on.
Click to expand...

I agree the problem isn't textualism per se but as you said it seems easy for these so called conservatives and liberals to interpret the text anyway they want. It's clear that when when judges followed "original intent" and to a lesser extent Original Meaning (Scalia's version of textualism) this **** didn't happen as often.

The next time a second amendment argument comes to a liberal SCOTUS we're screwed.
 
Last edited:
They a video together, shaking hands at the end. At least on the surface they are making it work.

Bad thing was that Charles Omenihu was commenting on the tweet saying Chuba shouldn't have agreed to anything.
 
Monahorns said:
Deez, you mean like Roberts vote against those churches meeting? JK.

This is the same crap Roberts pulled in the Obamacare ruling. He combined things loosely that didn't match, when he labeled fines as a tax. Then made his ruling based on garbled logic.
Click to expand...

The Obamacare ruling wasn't a tenth as nauseating as this one.
 
Garmel said:
I agree the problem isn't textualism per se but as you said it seems easy for these so called conservatives and liberals to interpret the text anyway they want. It's clear that when when judges followed "original intent" and to a lesser extent Original Meaning (Scalia's version of textualism) this **** didn't happen as often.

The next time a second amendment argument comes to a liberal SCOTUS we're screwed.
Click to expand...

The liberals don't claim to be textualists. If it's an issue that involves cultural liberalism, they don't give two squirts of piss about the text. Gorsuch and Roberts simply didn't do a serious textualist analysis. They framed it that way, but they ignored what the text meant at the time the bill passed and forced a particular outcome. It was wretched.
 
hic
"The NFL is woke. Stock probably went up."
I do not know if he had high potential but if not I think the actual team owners coaches etc who publically signal they are "woke" will not sign a troublemaker who is not a first rounder.
Who has signed Colin? Roger is begging anyone to sign
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top