- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
JimEverett
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 2045 |
| Registered on: | 5/26/2020 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: US to suspend visa processing for 75 countries starting next week
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 8:11 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Has a district judge from maine not stopped this yet?
0
re: Physics Question re Good/ICE Incident
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 4:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I am genuinely interested as to why a fair number of posters are focused upon "acceleration" rather than "velocity."
Probably because she accelerated the vehicle. I have never heard "he velocitized the vehicle" i dont think that is even a word
re: Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To be more precise, federal laws that say "sex" only mean "sex". I don't think there are any federal laws with the statutory language using "gender"
States can do what they want
And yes, the solution is to separate the concepts. The left merging the concepts is what led to this insanity and separating them solves the issues. It's literally that simple. The gender people can have infinite genders that mean nothing in normal society, and all the laws written using "sex" to mean biological sex, can work as they were intended.
You pointed out that Gorsuch and Roberts did not differentiate for the purposes of a Title VII discrimination claim. The issue with Title VII is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex in employment. Taking sex as meaning "biological sex" that means there can be no consideration of biological sex in taking an adverse action against someone in an employment setting.
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it - but the argument here is that discrimination against a person for being gay or trans relies, in part, on biological sex. It is not merging concepts; it is taking the Title VII legislation on its face as prohibiting any use whatsoever of biological sex in making an adverse employment decision.
That causation standard does not really follow in Equal Protection cases nor does it seem relevant in the Title IX claims in this trans case.
re: Democrats are attacking Democrats
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 10:13 am to Zach
I think Republicans should take a page from the Democrats 2022 playbook and work towards helping the looney Democrats taking on the established ones in the primaries.
re: 170 confirmed instances of citizens temporarily detained against 622K forced deportations
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 10:03 am to Jax Teller
These are the same people who believe police are killing tens of thousands of innocent black people each month
re: Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
Posted by JimEverett on 1/14/26 at 9:56 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
Will they ban it? Or will they say it is ok for states to ban it? Big difference. I honestly haven’t been paying attention.
They will say it is okay for states to ban it.
re: Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
There is a chance that you get enough justices to determine that the laws in question discriminate on the basis of sex because only females will have their biological status checked. But that seems to me unlikely.
The Equal Protection claim is the big one - and given the recent gender affirming treatment for kids case, I don't see this Court making trans a protected status.
The Title IX claims might allow an opening for trans-rights position - where you can have an individualized assessment of whether a trans woman who wants to compete actually has the physical advantages that the laws purport to ban. If not, then it can compete.
The Equal Protection claim is the big one - and given the recent gender affirming treatment for kids case, I don't see this Court making trans a protected status.
The Title IX claims might allow an opening for trans-rights position - where you can have an individualized assessment of whether a trans woman who wants to compete actually has the physical advantages that the laws purport to ban. If not, then it can compete.
re: That damn Pam Bondi has her stupid nose in everything I tell ya
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 5:39 pm to FLTech
Some prosecutors in the Minneapolis DOJ office have reportedly resigned due to this investigation.
re: Did JustIce Alito Kill Men In Women’s Sports Today?
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 5:36 pm to LuckyTiger
If the Court rules that tras is not a protected class - and I think they will - then it seems like that will make it harder for blue states to continue to allow trans women to play in womens sports. It will become easy for a woman (a protected class) to sue a sports body/school district/state for discriminating against them by allowing trans women (not protected) to play against them.
That is why it seems to me the people fighting these two laws are arguing that some trans should not qualify to play in womens sports - that it should be a specific determination each time. Apparently, that was the status quo in Idaho before the law was passed (not sure about West Virginia.
Regardless, I find it hard to believe that this Court will find that trans are a protected class and that legislation targeting them should be reviewed with heightened scrutiny.
That is why it seems to me the people fighting these two laws are arguing that some trans should not qualify to play in womens sports - that it should be a specific determination each time. Apparently, that was the status quo in Idaho before the law was passed (not sure about West Virginia.
Regardless, I find it hard to believe that this Court will find that trans are a protected class and that legislation targeting them should be reviewed with heightened scrutiny.
re: Incompetent or Crooked- Trump not letting up
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 1:44 pm to Upperdecker
Do the renovation costs come from the taxpayer? I keep seeing people say the taxpayer does not "directly" pay for the renovations. I am not sure what that means: either we pay for it or we do not.
re: Clintons are Refusing to Testify
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 11:14 am to Jbird
quote:
Clinton attorneys say subpoena is “legally unenforceable.”
Did one of his attorneys really say that?
If so, what does it mean - that the subpoena was improperly issued or that it is properly issued but there is no enforcement mechanism?
re: SCOTUS Arguments On Men in Women's Sports
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 11:03 am to fwtex
I had it on in the background, but it seemed like Sotomayor and maybe Jackson were exploring the idea that the case is moot because the plaintiff/challenger of the Idaho law had dropped out of the case.
Along similar lines it seems like the liberals might be taking the position - and will make it clear in their dissent or concurrence - that the true question before the court is whether the Idaho law properly applies to a person or persons similarly situated as the plaintiffs. The idea being something along the lines of: plaintiff has a testosterone level of X and that the State has enough of an interest in stopping such a person from competing in womens sports. But the State might not have the basis from stopping someone with level X-Z.
Along similar lines it seems like the liberals might be taking the position - and will make it clear in their dissent or concurrence - that the true question before the court is whether the Idaho law properly applies to a person or persons similarly situated as the plaintiffs. The idea being something along the lines of: plaintiff has a testosterone level of X and that the State has enough of an interest in stopping such a person from competing in womens sports. But the State might not have the basis from stopping someone with level X-Z.
re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Posted by JimEverett on 1/13/26 at 10:44 am to Jbird
It is a game to these people. Very immature adults.
re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Posted by JimEverett on 1/12/26 at 2:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
If a cop saw a person gun down 10 cops before the cop shot that person there would still be a technical legal question of whether the cop acted reasonably which would theoretically linger until and unless there was a formal fact finder concluding that. Ninethelesd it is obvious.
Similarly, though not as extreme, as when a person fleeing arrest by accelerating their car at an officer, andhitting that officer with the car before the officer uses deadly force.
The reasonableness is obvious.
Similarly, though not as extreme, as when a person fleeing arrest by accelerating their car at an officer, andhitting that officer with the car before the officer uses deadly force.
The reasonableness is obvious.
re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Posted by JimEverett on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But just for the fun of the discussion ... If an LEO knows with 100% certainty that he will receive "minor injuries" (and nothing more) unless he first uses DEADLY force, does that knowledge constitute legal cause for the use of deadly force?
If you are stipulating that in the abstract - as in some sort of hypothetical thought experiment - then no. The hypothetical guarantees that given that the LEO knows he will not suffer death or serious bodily injury.
However, assuming he knows this in the real world he may still have a reasonable belief that a person fleeing arrest, and that has shown a propensity of being anti-LEO, is a danger to others then the LEO can use deadly force.
re: ICE is empowered to arrest anyone (including citizens)
Posted by JimEverett on 1/9/26 at 4:16 pm to Delupe
In this case it really does not matter, because all the elements in your bolded part are there. But to be clear, the part you bolded only applies to 5B, not 5A.
re: ICE is empowered to arrest anyone (including citizens)
Posted by JimEverett on 1/9/26 at 3:18 pm to Delupe
No. That is not what the statute says. I even posted it.
ICE is empowered to arrest anyone (including citizens)
Posted by JimEverett on 1/9/26 at 2:35 pm
if they commit an offense in their presence.
Thus, when some fools are playing a "game" of obstruct ICE, ICE agents can arrest them.
I have been seeing and hearing misinfo on this point.
8 USC section 1357 (a)5(A):
LINK
Thus, when some fools are playing a "game" of obstruct ICE, ICE agents can arrest them.
I have been seeing and hearing misinfo on this point.
8 USC section 1357 (a)5(A):
quote:
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(5) to make arrests-
(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,
LINK
re: Officer cell phone footage released
Posted by JimEverett on 1/9/26 at 2:06 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
He was standing in front of her car. She put it in drive, looked right at him and gunned it. There is no other explanation for those actions other than she was trying to hit him.
Was she trying to kill him? We’ll never know. But 100% she was trying to hit him.
100%
re: New pics of 'but she was a mom' Renee Nicole Goo? She looked totally stable
Posted by JimEverett on 1/9/26 at 9:33 am to stout
We sure that is her?
re: oh shite - Vance just said ICE officer who shot woman had been run over once already
Posted by JimEverett on 1/8/26 at 11:03 pm to JimEverett
Add too that Good's wife was out of the vehicle because she was arguing with the guy who got stuck trying to go around the Good's car and she wanted to film their obstruction of ICE for social media clicks.
Popular
8
