RockyTop85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 13,334
- Likes
- 7,240
Lol. ‘Women getting abused’ is logical? In track meets? Swim meets? Trans runners clubbing the other girls like baby seals before the race? That is about as emotional as I would expect from the party of aspiring Democrats. 0-1.Mine are not emotional appeals, but logical and based in individual rights. That extends to firearm rights. I don't think the state or Fed have the constitutional power to deprive the first or unduly encumber the second.
I didn't say or imply anything remotely similar to 'locking up the kids', that was you. The dog-beater is the state in this case. I can attempt to intervene in the abuse I see occurring. If the dog is saved and the guy takes it out on the kids, he (the state) is making the choice to remain abusive; then he should be locked up, not the kids.
Whether one likes it or not, federal funding is strings-attached regardless of state law. I think Federal court is the proper place to sort it. In the meantime, I'm glad that it is being publicized as the wrong it is, win or lose in court. And since these things slide under the radar often, perhaps Maine residents need that awareness, and petition their legislature.
If Maine had a state law against hunting children that the Fed wanted to strike because Fed $ were allocated, I'd side with Maine in federal court.
Your plan is to punish all the kids to keep them safe from abuse. The analogy fits. It’s discrediting that you don’t see it. 0-2.
“iM nOt mAKiNG eMoTioNal ApPeaLs…” compares it to hunting children. 0-3.
Will put a pin in the federal funding/strings attached argument until you at least read the very first factor articulated in SD v. Dole. But you’re headed for 0-4 on that one.
If there were an actual individual right at stake, you’d have legitimate options that don’t punish every kid in the state. As it is, you have the option of convincing the court that it falls under an actual right. Or, if you think women’s sports should be an individual right, you have the option of a constitutional amendment. And you have less cumbersome legitimate legislative options for revising Title IX or expressly tying strings to the funding (but perhaps a less compelling government interest in the latter while trying to disband the department of education because of states rights).
At present, it’s not an individual right any more than abortion is. That’s just more aspiring Democrat rhetoric. It’s purely a prudential determination. And you apparently think you and yours should be able to make those determinations and the people of Maine and their self-determinative government be damned if they don’t do what you think is best. In that situation, you’re seemingly fine with the executive blowing past the more targeted responses and ignoring the restrictions and directives put in place by the other two branches of the federal government and lawlessly punishing the entire state for it.
But as long as you claim it’s for iNdIvIDuAl RIgHts I guess your conservative bonafides remain unsullied.