It's also a good thing for other nations to look upon. (Continuing from my previous message at the end of page 1.)
I'm inclined to think that the Supreme Court should be enlarged, with more than the current 9 justices, and some internal structure or "panelization" of judges, to better address the caseload.
In line with what Neal Katyal and some others have been talking up in recent years.
There already was a Biden administration Supreme Court review panel that closed out with what some (if not many) Democrats regard as having only gone through the motions, but not really delivering on the purpose of review. A "window dressing."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2022).]
People here are going miles and miles around the block and well out of their way to make Biden "wrong" on this one.
To say that race and sex (yes sex, not gender) should not be criteria for selection of a Justice is certainly not "going miles and miles around the block". It is an important principle with regard to equality of opportunity. That is a lesson that some learned the hard way, 50 years ago.
Fifty years ago was when there should already have been a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Too many people went out of their way at that time to make sure it didn't happen.
It's part of the history that's recounted in those two OpEds that I posted in my previous remarks. The one from Sheryll Cashin, and then the second other OpEd that I posted.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-07-2022).]
Fifty years ago was when there should already have been a Black woman on the Supreme Court. Too many people went out of their way at that time to make sure it didn't happen.
It's part of the history that's recounted in those two OpEds that I posted in my previous remarks. The one from Sheryll Cashin, and then the second other OpEd that I posted.
At least half of the people posting in this thread, including me, are old enough to remember when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall. And young enough to be impressed.
Babbling, evading and gibbering about everything OTHER THAN what the United States Supreme Court is instituted for and what it is supposed to do.
It's like a "seminar in Leftist Bullshit".
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
"......a Model of How Affirmative Action Should Work"
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
This is the highest visibility job in the land .....
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
"History shows why it’s time for a Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court"
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: One aspect of SCOTUS nominations that separates "Supreme Court justice" from just about any other job like airline pilot, auto mechanic (etc.) is how seldom an opening appears for a SCOTUS nominee to be named.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's specifically a Black woman that does the most in terms of representation. Of having a Supreme Court that looks like "us", ......
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
…..representational of the nation's diversity.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
.... a Supreme Court that looks and talks more like the nation itself.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's also a good thing for other nations to look upon……
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Fifty years ago was when there should already have been a Black woman on the Supreme Court.
Leftists gotta Leftist
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-07-2022).]
Babbling? Shouldn't that be bubbling? That's the first word of the immediately preceding clunker, and the only word of it that I read. I have an embargo in place which—aside from certain exceptions that crop up from time to time—prevents certain forum member-flagged message containers (posts) from unloading their cargoes of text and images at any rinselberg-controlled eyeball facility.
I reprise the image of the previous discussion, from another forum member; to wit:
An iconic image, to be sure. That's how justice should be dispensed, and I think Ketanji Brown Jackson will do very well in that regard. But I am not one to turn a blind eye towards American history, and history is the foundation upon which my previous messagings were constructed. And what messages were those? The messages that found fault with those who found fault with candidate Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court, and President Biden's subsequently delivering on that pledge. Here's something I like:
"KENTUCKY GOVERNOR VETOES BILL REQUIRING SCHOOLS TO TEACH KIDS SLAVERY WAS A BLIP IN AMERICA’S PERFECT PAST"
quote
Democrat Andy Beshear blasted Kentucky Republicans’ crusade to censor conversations about race in the classroom.
quote
On Wednesday, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, vetoed Senate Bill 1, which, while not using critical race theory—the right’s bogeyman du jour—explicitly, quite obviously attempts to regulate what teachers can discuss with their students when it comes to race. “Senate Bill 1 tries to police classroom discussions on topics such as race,” Beshear wrote in letter vetoing the bill. “These are discussions our children are having with or without adults in our schools. Prescribing a rigid approach to what must be ‘taught’ in those discussions will lessen if not erase them.”
As CNN notes, S.B. 1 states that public schools must provide instruction that makes it clear that “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race or sex” and that “the institution of slavery and post–Civil War laws enforcing racial segregation and discrimination were contrary to the fundamental American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but that defining racial disparities solely on the legacy of this institution is destructive to the unification of our nation.” In other words, teachers would have had to explain to their students that while slavery and Jim Crow–era segregation were bad, they really amounted to more of a “few bad apples” situation that has no impact on America today.
In the letter, Beshear insisted that adults and children alike have First Amendment rights that allow them to have important conversations, like ones about race, without being censored by the government. He also blasted the bill’s requirement that teachers incorporate “a specific set of historical documents and speeches” into lessons, including a political campaign speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1964. “These texts were not selected by historians or scholars, but by a political body,” Beshear wrote, adding, “The fact that this text is included over others like Dwight Eisenhower’s statement to troops in advance of the D-Day invasion suggests the bill is aimed more at politics than at history.”
A short article. That's almost all of it. I don't have an online subscription to Vanity Fair, but I was able to read it as a "freebie." I used ALL CAPS because that's how the banner was published online at Vanity Fair.
"KENTUCKY GOVERNOR VETOES BILL REQUIRING SCHOOLS TO TEACH KIDS SLAVERY WAS A BLIP IN AMERICA’S PERFECT PAST" Bess Levin for Vanity Fair; April 8, 2022. https://www.vanityfair.com/...ar-kentucky-crt-bill
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-09-2022).]
As CNN notes, S.B. 1 states that public schools must provide instruction that makes it clear that “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race or sex” and that “the institution of slavery and post–Civil War laws enforcing racial segregation and discrimination were contrary to the fundamental American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but that defining racial disparities solely on the legacy of this institution is destructive to the unification of our nation.” In other words, teachers would have had to explain to their students that while slavery and Jim Crow–era segregation were bad, they really amounted to more of a “few bad apples” situation that has no impact on America today.
“an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race or sex” -This is true. To believe otherwise is blatantly racist.
“the institution of slavery and post–Civil War laws enforcing racial segregation and discrimination were contrary to the fundamental American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence,..." -This is also true. To believe otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of America's founding principles.
"...but that defining racial disparities solely on the legacy of this institution is destructive to the unification of our nation.” -This is also true. To believe that slavery is the sole cause of racial disparity is myopic and divisive. It ignores racism itself.
Everything following the phrase "In other words" is a gross misrepresentation of the text that precedes it.
Its kind of like saying, "I like Fritos corn chips with tuna salad" in other words "soggy corn flakes with cold asparagus is gross"
Now, it is a fact that both Fritos and corn flakes are made from corn and tuna salad often includes cold vegetables so I can see how some might be confused.
I seldom have certainties about these things. And in this case, no exception. And I am (once again, already today) "ruminating from afar." It is more than 2000 miles from here to Kentucky's state capital city of Frankfort.
I am more doubtful of the wholesomeness of this Kentucky S.B. 1 than I am about the vetoing of it by the governor.
This S.B. 1 strikes me as one of those proverbial "solutions in search of a problem."
But if you think different, I cannot claim expertise in this matter.
Has it ever ONCE occurred to you that the stupid things that you think, believe and post are due to the stupid people and sources that you get your propaganda and whack-job ideas from?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-09-2022).]
Everything following the phrase "In other words" is a gross misrepresentation of the text that precedes it.
Yep, this is basic media tactic for today, a set up and then telling you what to think and what it means. Usually throwing in some emotional argument and class/race/gender division. Watch for it, its everywhere. It is the tool selling lies.
I present, without further ado, the "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ("Andy" Beshaer, Democrat) regarding Senate Bill 1 of the 2022 ]legislative] session."
That was on April 6, 2022. It's formatted like a typical business letter. It's just over a single page. Not as much as two full pages. I would highlight the text at the end. The paragraph that begins with "Senate Bill 1 further attempts to dictate how teachers talk about U.S. history..." That paragraph and the next paragraph that follows.
I think Kentucky's Governor made the right call. I think his veto would bring a smile to the faces of the Founding Fathers, if such a thing were possible.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (WDRB) -- The Kentucky General Assembly voted Wednesday to override Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of an expansive education bill that directs how history should be taught in Kentucky schools, gives authority of curriculum and principal hiring decisions to superintendents, and limits authority of the Jefferson County Board of Education to conduct business and administer spending.
The Senate voted 24-12-1 to override the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 1 and send it to the House, which later made the measure law on a 65-28 vote.
The part that has been misrepresented begins on page 34, line 18.
Have you read it? I would suggest that anyone who actually wants to debate this subject, read the actual bill first.
Here is the list of documents that the governor doesn't want to be taught:
1. The Mayflower Compact; 2. The Declaration of Independence; 3. The Constitution of the United States; 4. The Federalist No. 1 (Alexander Hamilton); 5. The Federalist Nos. 10 and 51 (James Madison); 6. The June 8, 1789, speech on amendments to the Constitution of the United States by James Madison; 7. The first ten (10) amendments to the Constitution of the United States, also known as the Bill of Rights; 8. The 1796 Farewell Address by George Washington; 9. The United States Supreme Court opinion in Marbury v. Madison, U.S. 137 (1803); 10. The Monroe Doctrine by James Monroe; 11. What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? speech by Frederick Douglass; 12. The United States Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); 13. Final Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln; 14. The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln; 15. Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States by Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton; 16. The September 18, 1895, Atlanta Exposition Address by Booker T. Washington; 17. Of Booker T. Washington and Others by W.E.B. Du Bois;2 18. The United States Supreme Court opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1633U.S. 537 (1896); 19. The August 31, 1910, New Nationalism speech by Theodore Roosevelt; 20. The January 11, 1944, State of the Union Address by Franklin D. Roosevelt; 21. The United States Supreme Court opinions in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955); 22. Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.; 23. The August 28, 1963, I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.; and 24. A Time for Choosing by Ronald Reagan.
Which of these documents do you believe should be hidden from future voters? The governor obviously believes that the children should be shielded from historical truth.
On page 35, lines 19-26 reads as follows:
quote
Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed to restrict a public school or public charter school from providing instruction or using instructional materials that include:
(a) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted by a school district; (b) The discussion of controversial aspects of history; or (c) The instruction and instructional materials on the historical oppression of a particular group of people.
Now, reread the last paragraph of the governor's veto, in light of the above quote. Can anyone tell me what in the hell the governor is talking about?
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 04-13-2022).]
Originally posted by williegoat: Does this mean that you might be reconsidering your opinion, or that Hancock doesn't like history?
It would be fabulous if one of the oft told descriptions of the "Multiverse" theory were true. There could be a universe where the Governor's veto is overridden (this universe). And a second, almost parallel universe where the Governor's veto is not overridden. And a third universe, looking upon these other two universes and being able to see what happens and compare.
On paper, this S.B. 1 with its list of history "musts", from the Mayflower Compact to Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" doesn't look all that bad, considering the phrase in the bill that says "including, but not limited to...".
Maybe the Republicans at the state level in Kentucky are a "cut above" the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.
But I'm not moved to say that Governor Beshear's veto was "wrong."
I'll just keep "watching this space."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-13-2022).]
I have to leave it with the last thing I said. The "Multiverse" statement.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Sadly though, your Leftist fantasies have no limitations.
When confronted with your own monumental stupidity you immediately waltz off into bizarre science fiction excuses.
In one thread you're pimping for communism and over here you're the Leftist blowhard trying to tell everyone what the founding fathers would "make a sad emoji face" at.
Your dysfunctional cognitive dissonance is enough to make any psychiatrist take serious note. You are the antithesis of this thread's title.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-13-2022).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think Kentucky's Governor made the right call. I think his veto would bring a smile to the faces of the Founding Fathers, if such a thing were possible.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: A Founding Father's face... must be John Hancock by the looks of 'im.
Just like the "DEMOcRATS" destroying the country right now as we speak/type/breath, they also have to bring up the Founding Fathers in their speeches and argument's. Playing to both sides of the electorate to maintain the illusion they still give a sh*t about the Founding Fathers and their intentions. Why bother, Loney-Liberal-Leftists CANCELED them! "Nutt'n but a bunch of slave owners!" they say. "They were evil white people" they say. Taking their names and pictures off schools, roads, and tear down/remove the monuments to them. ERASING HISTORY. You're 2 faced. You're hypocrites.
"House Bill 3 prohibits a physician from performing, inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in a medical emergency. It does not include exceptions for cases of rape and incest.
The measure requires that drugs used in a medication abortion be provided only by a qualified physician and bars the drugs from being sent via mail."
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-14-2022).]
As recently as a few years ago, when I was in graduate school, anyone making an “essentialist” argument was generally thought to be committing an intellectual and moral error. Essentialism most often functioned as a pejorative term in left-leaning, academic parlance, naming the retrograde belief that groups, people, or identities were defined by immutable “essences”—ontological or biological substrates that determine action and behavior.
How strange, then, to find “essentialism” being flung as an accusation in the culture war du jour, the recent controversy over critical race theory—but now as an epithet against the Left. Florida governor Ron DeSantis says that “critical race theory is basically race essentialism.” Pundit Ben Shapiro calls the pushback against CRT “a rejection of racial essentialism in favor of individualism.” Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist who more than anyone else invented the campaign against CRT (on the cynical, though not incorrect, understanding that “strung together, the phrase ‘critical race theory’ connotes hostile, academic, divisive, race-obsessed, poisonous, elitist, anti-American”), accuses CRT-influenced pedagogues of “explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.”
The merits of these arguments—about the nature of critical race theory, and of the larger left-wing cultural politics for which it has lately become a symbol—are less interesting to me than the universal disrepute of “essentialism.” No one in academia wants to be accused of essentialism, and conservatives seem to have selected the term partly because they know where to slip the knife in. It is a classic example of what Kenneth Burke called the “stealing back and forth of symbols.”
Study B (1913) painted by Amadeu de Souza-Cardoso.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-17-2022).]
Leftists like you who don't believe that the immutable characteristics that make a man essentially a man and a woman essentially a woman exist.
Leftists like you who believe that facts and opinions are essentially the same.
Leftists like you who think that infanticide and "women's health" are essentially the same. Leftists like you who think that words can essentially be "violence".
Leftists like you for whom feelings and emotions are essentially rational, objective, thinking.
Leftists like you who hold propaganda to be essentially the same as truth.
Leftists like you
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-17-2022).]
Diversity isn't a virtue. It's divisive by definition. We should acknowledge diversity but celebrate unity. I don't pick my friends based on what makes us different. No one is the same and everyone knows it. But tell me what makes us have shared values, or ideas. Diversity as a goal is divide and conquer.
Diversity isn't a virtue. It's divisive by definition. We should acknowledge diversity but celebrate unity. I don't pick my friends based on what makes us different. No one is the same and everyone knows it. But tell me what makes us have shared values, or ideas. Diversity as a goal is divide and conquer.
Well put.
I'll add that Leftists "celebrate diversity", as they call it, in largest part because they have completely abandoned discrimination in any form, which has rendered them completely indiscriminate in their thinking.
Of course for any rational adult, discrimination is a normal and essential (pun intended), part of possessing critical thinking skills.
The Leftist's quest for “indiscriminateness” is a rejection of thinking, in favor of a mindless “utopian ideology.”
The Left believes that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because it will bring about "paradise".
As a result:
Leftists are unable to discriminate between lies and truth
Leftists are unable to discriminate between right and wrong
Leftists are unable to discriminate between the profane and the profound
Leftists are unable to discriminate the behaviors that lead to success and the behaviors that lead to failure and ruin
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-17-2022).]
Why has the Florida Department of Education been rejecting so many math textbooks?
The books were causing division in classrooms. Click to show
"Florida rejects 41% of new math textbooks, citing critical race theory among its reasons" Tina Burnside, Zoe Sottile and Nicole Chavez for CNN; April 19, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04...ce-theory/index.html
"Florida rejects 41% of new math textbooks, citing critical race theory among its reasons" Tina Burnside, Zoe Sottile and Nicole Chavez for CNN; April 19, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04...ce-theory/index.html
.
Rational fix a kindergartener could figure out... hey math textbook creators, stick to math.
From the article: "eight different publishers had submissions rejected for referencing critical race theory, social-emotional learning and other special topics. "
Thought they said Critical Race theory didn't exist?
Rational fix a kindergartener could figure out... hey math textbook creators, stick to math.
From the article: "eight different publishers had submissions rejected for referencing critical race theory, social-emotional learning and other special topics. "
Thought they said Critical Race theory didn't exist?
That's what the Florida Department of Education said: "publishers... referencing critical race theory..."
Wouldn't it be interesting to see some actual textbook page(s) that the Florida Department of Education calls out as a reason for rejecting a textbook?
But there are so many other news stories to contemplate.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-21-2022).]
Be careful of the way that he reduces "Liberalism" to "Welfare." Where he says (in so many words) that a liberal's worst nightmare is a self-sufficient person who doesn't need any kind of social safety net.
At that moment (1:44) he is being careless with words and indulging in a wildly oversimplified kind of reductionism that is oblivious to about 90 percent of what ought to be considered, to consider that in a thoughtful and meaningful way. He's not thinking at that moment. He is just "bumper sticker'ing." Or "image meme'ing."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-26-2022).]
... he is being careless with words and indulging in a wildly oversimplified kind of reductionism that is oblivious to about 90 percent of what ought to be considered, to consider that in a thoughtful and meaningful way. He's not thinking at that moment. He is just "bumper sticker'ing." Or "image meme'ing."
That would be an astoundingly astute observation, were it applied to the flood of Leftist propaganda to which the American people are subjected on a daily basis.
I ran in to this, Its not bad, and I think it gets to the point of what "Diversity" really is and should be for the most part. Though it still mentions "groups" which I don't care for. A company uses this to "recognize" people. It is not about affirmative action and aiming at certain skin colors or genders or "identities". What do you guys think?
"Demonstrates sensitivity and caring when interacting with others in the workplace. Leads employees in celebrating diversity in the workplace by helping others understand and value similarities and differences. Speaks out regarding non-inclusive behavior in the workplace. Proactively seeks differing opinions and perspectives to learn from others. Participates in community activities that celebrate diversity or that reach a diverse audience. Goes out of their way to make others feel appreciated and accepted. Asks questions and listens carefully before responding. Gathers feedback from a diverse audience to gain perspective. Considers how decisions impact or influence diverse individuals or groups. Shows interest in the individual traits, skills, and talents of others and looks for ways those characteristics can be utilized to benefit the company and its customers. Takes a leadership role on diversity councils or support groups."
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-27-2022).]
Federal judge esp. Supreme Court no reason not to commit to a Black woman in advance and compelling and good reasons to nominate one. This is the highest visibility job in the land ...
Kamala Harris is a good example of why being Black and a woman is not always the best choice.
