Posted on 03/24/2021 11:46:35 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
The Spectator’s Amber Athey reports that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem says she’s the victim of “conservative cancel culture” over her opposition to a bill making its way through the state legislature to “promote continued fairness in women’s sports”
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
Nice paraphrase of Reagan about the Democrats.
I assume we both miss him.
ass/u/me
What teeth are needed? Can the South Dakota government not enforce its own laws regulating its own public schools without creating a private cause of action for damages?
Is that in the KJV?
Or are we being coy?
Or are you suggesting we’re both asses for liking Reagan?
So, if South Dakota high school students who would normally be considered for South Dakota athletic scholarships were disenfranchised by an unequal application of the state law because said law would not apply to the state university system, they should have no standing to bring complaint? And this simply because of the pressure brought to bear by outside agencies like the NCAA and the C of C?
Or are you saying that South Dakota’s publicly funded universities would somehow be exempt from retaliation by the NCAA or other entities, if they were to ban male athletes competing in female sports?
I'm confused by your question. How can anything involving athletic scholarships deprive anyone of the right to vote? What does declining to create a private cause of action for damages for anyone "indirectly harmed" by a violation have to do with "unequal application of the state law"?
Disenfranchise:
transitive verb- To disfranchise; to deprive of the rights of a citizen.
transitive verb- To take away power or opportunities, especially the right to vote, from a person or group.
Disenfranchised:
adj.- Not having the right to vote, or a SIMILAR right, or having had that right taken away.
Clearer?
Bill Clinton was one.
Hussein Obama was another.
Biden and his whole family...
Shifty...Pelosi, AOC, I can't name them all.
So why is it....these types run under the radar...and nothing happens to them?
At some point the damn will burst I hope....
Ok... This is your opinion and as such are entitled to it.
Noted.
We answer our own question...what do they ALL have in common???
I know. I keep hoping, too.
No, your question is not any clearer, nor is it any clearer how proving a student who was “indirectly harmed” by a violation to sue a school for mental anguish damages is either necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the policy behind this law.
First of all, you’re being disingenuous by deflecting away from your obvious lack of understanding of the meaning of the word disenfranchised.
Secondly, you’re a lawyer.
Why should I be surprised?
No, I understand the meaning of the word “disenfranchised” well. It means depriving one of the right to vote. But even accepting your incorrect definition, it has no application to this discussion.
Was it a requirement take English before you went to law school?
Or grammar?
Or own a dictionary?
Of course, ...requirement TO take English...
Head slap.
I had to have a 4-year degree and take the LSAT, so yes.
I, too, took the LSAT.
Scored in the 95%.
You?
Been a while since I took it, of course.
More accurate wording would be 95th percentile.
168, which was 96th percentile that year.
Since we’ve got all the vitriol and opprobrium out of the way, I have a serious question.
In order to avoid what you regard as the inevitable litigation brought on by the bill as the SD legislature has drawn it up and voted for, how would you craft the legislation so as to achieve the result of only allowing females to compete against females?
Who benefits from allowing the NCAA and the C of C to place an effective veto on such a law as this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.