So if a doctor doesn’t want to treat colored folk that would be OK. What about the people with red hair because they are icky folk? When does the right of quality healthcare take a back seat to bigotry? Oh yes when it is Christians needed to discriminate so they demand the right to refuse to help / treat a patient in medical need. God before helping the sick and caring for the needy, was that what old Jesus said? See if they are of the right political party and follow your church doctrines before you give medical aid was a verse I never learned was in the bible.
South Carolina lawmakers on Friday passed a bill allowing medical professionals and insurance companies to deny care based on personal belief. Some say the legislation, which now heads to the state Senate for consideration, would disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ people, women, and people of color.
Under the bill, titled the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act,” South Carolina law would be altered to excuse medical practitioners, health care institutions and health care payers from providing care that violates their “conscience.”
Dozens of state residents in February testified against the bill, calling it vague and overbroad. They also shared concerns that the legislation would disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
HB 4776 allows healthcare institutions to refuse to provide care, even when it is medically necessary and in the best interest of the patient. Under this legislation, healthcare institutions will be able to refuse to refer, teach, and research any items they deem to be against their beliefs.
These bills will impact access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications, fertility care, end of life care, and mental health services, as well as allow insurance companies and employers to refuse to reimburse, pay, or contract for medically necessary services.
Religious freedom is a fundamental American value that is entirely compatible with providing quality, non-discriminatory healthcare. It is not a license to deprive others of their rights simply because of personal beliefs.
This bill sends the message that those seeking medical care in conflict with their doctor’s non-medical values are not equal members of society entitled to dignity and respect.
The South Carolina House passed a bill that would allow medical professionals, healthcare institutions, and insurers to deny access to gender-affirming care, contraceptives, HIV medications and more.
‘The anointment of God’: Rep. Boebert’s July 4 rally speech was filled with Christian nationalism
Right-wing QAnon conspiracy theorist and United States Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) on Friday asked the Twitter audience to explain to her why the law does not “require” LGBTQ+ Americans to wait until they are 21 years old to come out.
Boebert, a radically socially conservative high-school dropout who supports unfettered access to firearms, drew absurd parallels between LGBTQ+ identity struggles and established legal limitations on who can buy “alcohol beverages” and cigarettes. She also stated that sexuality is a choice, which it is not.
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products. Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?” Boebert posited.
We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?
The brutal responses that Boebert received were probably the opposite of what she had anticipated. Or maybe she just wanted to stir the pot. If so, mission accomplished.
Users tore into the freshman lawmaker’s disjointed bigotry.
Why is it unreasonable to ask people to wear a mask in public during a pandemic?
— Lara reads banned books in Florida📚🇺🇸 (@MadeInTheUSANJ) April 1, 2022
Interesting! Why is it reasonable that 16/17yr olds can acquire semi automatic weapons that could make them a potential mass shooter or mass murderer. They have not reached a certain level of maturity either (some never will) & that is surely a potential life altering choice! https://t.co/TFxBgtGl8b
• Must be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages • Must be 21 to purchase tobacco products • Must be 21 to decide sexuality and identity BUT⬇️ • Can be ANY age with ANY background and can buy ANY type of gun without question
You married a guy who exposed himself to minors. Your decision-making skills haven't improved since then.
Why is it so unreasonable to require representatives to have a certain level of morality before making society altering decisions about anything at all?
— Frank Wears A Mask (@Frankwearsamask) April 1, 2022
The stream of antiwar letters to a St. Petersburg lawmaker has dried up. Some Russians who had criticized the Kremlin have turned into cheerleaders for the war. Those who publicly oppose it have found the word “traitor” scrawled on their apartment door.
Polls and interviews show that many Russians now accept Mr. Putin’s contention that their country is under siege from the West and had no choice but to attack. The war’s opponents are leaving the country or keeping quiet.
Polls released this week by Russia’s most respected independent pollster, Levada, showed Mr. Putin’s approval rating hitting 83 percent, up from 69 percent in January. Eighty-one percent said they supported the war, describing the need to protect Russian speakers as its primary justification.
Please note what state control of the media can do and how it sways the public perceptions. Fox news, Alex Jones, Newsmax, Breitbart and a couple more are doing that in our country. It is all propaganda at all times. If we don’t get a handle on it soon we will be back 100 years in to the past with a country run by corporations and a starving population desperately trying to make it another day with no rights or protections by the government.
This is an interesting review of studies on advantages of trans people in sports. Now the date is old. I noticed it was published in 2016 so there maybe a more modern review but a quick google search did not produce it for me. I have been interested in the medical science of this subject because most of the time it is only dealt with on an emotional level. This article is very long and some times very tedious. So I am only going to post the intro to the review and its summary conclusion. If you want to dig through the data please go to the link above. Thanks.
Whether transgender people should be able to compete in sport in accordance with their gender identity is a widely contested question within the literature and among sport organisations, fellow competitors and spectators. Owing to concerns surrounding transgender people (especially transgender female individuals) having an athletic advantage, several sport organisations place restrictions on transgender competitors (e.g. must have undergone gender-confirming surgery). In addition, some transgender people who engage in sport, both competitively and for leisure, report discrimination and victimisation.
Objective
To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the literature pertaining to sport participation or competitive sport policies in transgender people. Therefore, this review aimed to address this gap in the literature.
Method
Eight research articles and 31 sport policies were reviewed.
Results
In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence based.
Conclusion
Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.
Keywords: Gender Identity, Sport Participation, Competitive Sport, Sport Organisation, International Olympic Committee
The majority of transgender people have a negative experience when engaging in competitive sports and sport-related physical activity.
There is no direct and consistent research to suggest that transgender female individuals (and transgender male individuals) have an athletic advantage in sport and, therefore, the majority of competitive sport policies are discriminatory against this population.
There are several areas of future research required to significantly improve our knowledge of transgender people’s experiences in sport, inform the development of more inclusive sport policies, and, most importantly, enhance the lives of transgender people, both physically and psychosocially.
FILE — Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey gives his state of the state address at the Arizona Capitol, Monday, Jan. 10, 2022, in Phoenix. Governor Ducey signed a series of bills Wednesday, March 30, targeting abortion and transgender rights, joining a growing list of GOP-led states pursuing a conservative social agenda. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
FILE — A number of Arizona reproductive health, rights, and justice advocates protest an abortion bill at the Arizona Capitol Monday, April 26, 2021, in Phoenix. Arizona governor Doug Ducey signed a series of bills Wednesday, March 30, targeting abortion and transgender rights, joining a growing list of GOP-led states pursuing a conservative social agenda. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey refused to say Thursday if transgender people actually exist, twice dodging direct questions on the subject just a day after he signed legislation limiting transgender rights.
The Republican worked instead to defend his signatures on bills that bar transgender girls and women from playing on girls high school and women’s college sports teams and barring gender affirming surgery for anyone under age 18.
When specifically asked if he believed that there “are really transgender people,” the governor paused for several seconds before answering.
“I’m going to ask you to read the legislation and to see that the legislation that we passed was in the spirit of fairness to protect girls sports in competitive situations,” Ducey said, referring to the new law that targets transgender girls who want to play on girls sports teams. “That’s what the legislation is intended to do, and that’s what it does.”
Asked again if he believed there are “actual transgender people,” he again answered slowly and carefully.
“I … am going to respect everyone, and I’m going to respect everyone’s rights. And I’m going to protect female sports. And that’s what the legislation does,” Ducey said.
Ducey’s response was “appalling,” according to the Arizona director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights group that advocates for equality for LGBTQ people. The organization worked to ensure families and transgender young people came to the Capitol to testify against the bills as the Republican-led House and Senate considered them this session.
“It’s quite shocking that he can’t even address trans people or even say that he thinks they exist,” Bridget Sharpe said.
Wednesday’s signing of the two transgender bills and a third that bars abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy and is currently unconstitutional put Ducey right in the middle of two top issues national Republicans are highlighting in the runup to November’s midterm elections.
Ducey also signed election legislation that minority Democrats said amounted to voter suppression by requiring longtime Arizonans to be thrown off the voter rolls if they did not prove their citizenship and residence location.
The governor leads the Republican Governors Association, which is charged with helping elect GOP chief executives in U.S. states. He in is the last year of his second term as Arizona governor and term limits bar him from seeking reelection.
The top Democrat in the state House, Rep. Reginald Bolding, called Wednesday “probably one of the darkest days we’ve seen in the history of Arizona.”
“With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Ducey has hurled Arizona backwards to its ugliest past,” Bolding said Wednesday. “And today, he put in jeopardy pregnant people, transgender youth in danger and curtailed voting rights for people of color.”
Social conservative groups and the Arizona Republican Party praised Ducey’s action. The Center for Arizona Policy, whose president shepherded the abortion and women’s sports bills through the Legislature, called it a victory.
“Thank you, Governor Ducey, for taking a bold stand for women athletes, vulnerable children, and the unborn by putting your signature on (the bills) in the face of intense opposition from activists,” Center for Arizona Policy president Cathi Herrod said in a news release she posted on Twitter.
She said the legislation protects the unborn, ensures a level playing field for female athletes and shows that “Arizona will do everything it can to protect vulnerable children struggling with gender confusion” by enacting the surgery ban.
Ducey said the surgery ban protects children from irreversible decisions.
“These are permanent surgeries of reassignment that are irreversible, and those discussions can happen once adulthood is reached,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Association has vowed to sue over the surgery ban. U.S. Supreme Court precedent currently says women have a constitutional right to abortion until about 24 weeks of pregnancy, although it is considering whether to uphold a 15-week ban enacted in Mississippi and may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision enshrining a woman’s right to choose.
Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden’s failed anti-COVID strategy, at a 2020 news conference.
(Associated Press)
Throughout much of the pandemic, Sweden has stood out for its ostensibly successful effort to beat COVID-19 while avoiding the harsh lockdowns and social distancing rules imposed on residents of other developed nations.
Swedish residents were able to enjoy themselves at bars and restaurants, their schools remained open, and somehow their economy thrived and they remained healthy. So say their fans, especially on the anti-lockdown right.
A new study by European scientific researchers buries all those claims in the ground. Published in Nature, the study paints a devastating picture of Swedish policies and their effects.
Projected ‘natural herd-immunity’ levels are still nowhere in sight.
— Brusselaers, et al, Nature
“The Swedish response to this pandemic,” the researchers report, “was unique and characterized by a morally, ethically, and scientifically questionable laissez-faire approach.”
The lead author of the report, epidemiologist Nele Brusselaers, is associated with the prestigious Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; her collaborators are affiliated with research institutes in Sweden, Norway and Belgium.
The details of Swedish policies as described by Brusselaers and her co-authors are horrifying. The Swedish government, they report, deliberately tried to use children to spread COVID-19 and denied care to seniors and those suffering from other conditions.
The government’s goal appeared geared to produce herd immunity — a level of infection that would create a natural barrier to the pandemic’s spread without inconveniencing middle- and upper-class citizens; the government never set forth that goal publicly, but internal government emails unearthed by the Swedish press revealed that herd immunity was the strategy behind closed doors.
Explicit or not, the effort failed. “Projected ‘natural herd-immunity’ levels are still nowhere in sight,” the researchers wrote, adding that herd immunity “does not seem within reach without widespread vaccinations” and “may be unlikely” under any circumstances.
That’s a reproach to the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely criticized white paper endorsing the quest for herd immunity and co-written by Martin Kulldorf, a Sweden-born Harvard professor who has explicitly defended his native country’s policies.
The country’s treatment of the elderly and patients with co-morbidities such as obesity was especially appalling.
“Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives,” the researchers wrote. “Potentially life-saving treatment was withheld without medical examination, and without informing the patient or his/her family or asking permission.”
In densely populated Stockholm, triage rules stated that patients with co-morbidities were not to be admitted to intensive care units, on grounds that they were “unlikely to recover,” the researchers wrote, citing Swedish health strategy documents and statistics from research studies indicating that ICU admissions were biased against older patients.
These policies were crafted by a small, insular group of government officials who not only failed to consult with experts in public health, but ridiculed expert opinion and circled the wagons to defend Anders Tegnell, the government epidemiologist who reigned as the architect of the country’s approach, against mounting criticism.
The bottom line is that Swedes suffered grievously from Tegnell’s policies. According to the authoritative Johns Hopkins pandemic tracker, while its total death rate from February 2020 through this week, 1,790 per million population, is better than that of the U.S. (2,939), Britain (2,420) and France (2,107), it’s worse than that of Germany (1,539), Canada (984) and Japan (220).
Sweden has done better than the U.S. and Britain against COVID, but worse than many other countries that imposed stricter lockdowns and much worse than its Nordic neighbors Denmark, Norway and Finland.
(Johns Hopkins University via Our World in Data)
More tellingly, it’s much worse than the rate of its Nordic neighbors Denmark (961), Norway (428) and Finland (538), all of which took a tougher anti-pandemic approach.
Anti-lockdown advocates continue to laud Sweden’s approach even today, despite the hard, cold statistics documenting its failure.
The right-wing economic commentator Stephen Moore, a reliably wrong pundit on many topics, preened over Sweden’s death rate compared to other countries that imposed more stringent lockdowns: “Sweden appears to have achieved herd immunity much more swiftly and thoroughly than other nations,” Moore wrote.
That was better than the rate of 6.84 in the U.S. , where lockdowns had been fading and had always been spotty, and in Denmark (5.65), but worse than France (3.97), Germany (2.23), Britain (2.23), Canada (2.03) and Norway (0.92).
Moore also declared, “What is clear today is that the Swedes saved their economy.”
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, of which Sweden is a member, isn’t quite so sanguine.
The OECD found that in terms of pandemic-driven economic contraction, Sweden did marginally better than Europe as a whole, but markedly worse than its Nordic neighbors Denmark, Norway and Finland, “despite the adoption of softer distancing measures, especially during the first COVID wave.” COVID-19, the OECD concludes, “hit the economy hard.”
The Nature authors show that Swedish government authorities denied or downplayed scientific findings about COVID that should have guided them to more reasoned and appropriate policies.
These included scientific findings that infected but asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people could spread the virus, that it was airborne, that the virus was a greater health threat than the flu and that children were not immune.
The Swedish policymakers “denied or downgraded the fact that children could be infectious, develop severe disease, or drive the spread of the infection in the population,” the Nature authors observe. At the same time, they found, the authorities’ “internal emails indicate their aim to use children to spread the infection in society.”
So the government refused to counsel the wearing of masks or social distancing or to sponsor more testing — at least at first. One fact that tends to be glossed over by anti-lockdown advocates is that Sweden did eventually tighten its social distancing regulations and advisories, though only after the failure of its initial policies became clear.
At first, in early March when other European countries went into strict lockdowns, Sweden only banned public gatherings of 500. Within weeks, it reduced the ceiling to 50 attendees. The state allowed no distance learning in schools at first, but later permitted it for older pupils and university students.
In June 2020, Tegnell himself acknowledged on Swedish radio that the country’s death rate was too high. “There is quite obviously a potential for improvement in what we have done in Sweden,” he said, though he backtracked somewhat during a news conference after the radio interview aired.
And in December 2020, King Carl XVI Gustaf shocked the country by taking a public stand against the government’s approach: “I think we have failed,” he said. “We have a large number who have died and that is terrible.”
He was correct. If Sweden had Norway’s death rate, it would have suffered only 4,429 deaths from COVID during the pandemic, instead of more than 18,500.
What may be especially damaged by the experience is Sweden’s image as a liberal society. The pandemic exposed numerous fault lines within its society — notably young versus old, natives versus immigrants.
The Nature authors underscore the irony of that outcome: “There was more emphasis on the protection of the ‘Swedish image’ than on saving and protecting lives or on an evidence-based approach.”
The lesson of the Swedish experience should be heeded by its fans here in the U.S. and in other lands. Sweden sacrificed its seniors to the pandemic and used its schoolchildren as guinea pigs. Its government plied its people with lies about COVID-19 and even tried to smear its critics.
These are features of the policies of the states that have been least successful at fighting the pandemic in the U.S., such as Florida — sacrifices borne by the most vulnerable, scientific authorities ignored or disdained, lies paraded as truth. Do we really want all of America to face the same disaster?
To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your President sees you.
The First Lady, the Vice President, the Second Gentleman, and my entire Administration see you for who you are — made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.
On this day and every day, we recognize the resilience, strength, and joy of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people. We celebrate the activism and determination that have fueled the fight for transgender equality.
We acknowledge the adversity and discrimination that the transgender community continues to face across our Nation and around the world.
Visibility matters, and so many transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming Americans are thriving.
Like never before, they are sharing their stories in books and magazines; breaking glass ceilings of representation on television and movie screens; enlisting — once again — to serve proudly and openly in our military; getting elected and making policy at every level of government; and running businesses, curing diseases, and serving our communities in countless other ways.
Despite this progress, transgender Americans continue to face discrimination, harassment, and barriers to opportunity.
Transgender women and girls — especially transgender women and girls of color — continue to face epidemic levels of violence, and 2021 marked the deadliest year on record for transgender Americans.
Each of these lives lost was precious. Each of them deserved freedom, justice, and joy. We must honor their lives with action by advancing equity and civil rights for all transgender people.
In the past year, hundreds of anti-transgender bills in States were proposed across America, most of them targeting transgender kids. The onslaught has continued this year.
These bills are wrong. Efforts to criminalize supportive medical care for transgender kids, to ban transgender children from playing sports, and to outlaw discussing LGBTQI+ people in schools undermine their humanity and corrode our Nation’s values.
Studies have shown that these political attacks are damaging to the mental health and well-being of transgender youth, putting children and their families at greater risk of bullying and discrimination.
My entire Administration is committed to ensuring that transgender people enjoy the freedom and equality that are promised to everyone in America. That is why I signed an Executive Order Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.
We are expanding Federal non-discrimination protections; promoting strategies to address violence against the transgender community and advance gender equity and equality; and disseminating new resources to enhance inclusion, opportunity, and safety for transgender people.
Additionally, Americans will soon be able to select more inclusive gender markers on their passports.
I continue to call on the Congress to swiftly pass the bipartisan Equality Act, which will ensure that LGBTQI+ individuals and families cannot be denied housing, employment, education, credit, and more because of who they are or who they love.
We will continue to work to help transgender people around the world live free from discrimination and violence.
On this Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor transgender people who are fighting for freedom, equality, dignity, and respect.
We also celebrate the parents, teachers, coaches, doctors, and other allies who affirm the identities of their transgender children and help these young people reach their potential.
Transgender people are some of the bravest Americans I know, and our Nation and the world are stronger, more vibrant, and more prosperous because of them.
To transgender Americans of all ages, I want you to know that you are so brave. You belong. I have your back.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2022, as Transgender Day of Visibility.
I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating discrimination against all transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary people — and all people.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-sixth.
This is not a family in Ukraine. This is a picture of a family in the US trying to survive by living in a large old van. This is what some kids going to school deal with. This is why reducing free meals is so horrible. This is parents trying to work to keep their children fed and clothed yet can not afford the cost of housing in the US. In some areas rents rose by 66%. Yes that number is true. How can anyone deal with this? Why is the wealthy allowed to profit from the misery of families?
Republicans eliminate precedent all the time. SCOTUS wants to overturn decided cases like Roe v Wade. Why would the worst president of all time, who personifies obstruction of justice, benefit from precedent?
“The average citizen views today’s Supreme Court as highly politicized because we all saw what our politicians did to it. The Republican political hardball, and the brazen dishonesty that was used to justify it, Trumpified the court with three out of nine justices — one stolen from the first Black president, one rammed through just days before the 2020 election, and one with a surprise resignation. Now, no one is shocked that a court forged with such political bad faith is making bad decisions with nakedly political overtones.”
This illegitimate SCOTUS majority does not interpret laws. They abuse their power to impose their regressive, revanchist, theocratic will on a population that does not respect them, did not vote for them, and has no way at all to hold them accountable.
I don’t know how, but this has to change.
Just when you think the three new judges are the worst, Clarence makes sure you know he is horrible, too.
What the right calls sexual indoctrination is the idea that gay or trans people exist and are normal. The only parents the right wants to have a say are right wing maga parents, the rest of the parents get told to shut up. They are trying to win the culture war by making even the exposure to LGBTQ+ people illegal. Even though kids are exposed to straight couples and straight sexuality all the time. So it is not about the sexual indoctrination of kids, it is about the idea they hate anyone different from them and don’t want kids to know about them until they have been taught to hate them.
Because this is not happening! It is a lie and misinformation from those that are anti-trans or using it as a political wedge issue. Men are not suddenly deciding they are not good enough to win in a sport as a man so will up-end their lives and face unending discrimination to live their life as a woman so they can compete as a female to win. Where the fuck to start to explain how stupid this idea is. First if a guy is not good enough to win against male competitors it is doubtful that after they take the necessary treatments to qualify to play on a women team they would win there either. Second what guy who is a male gender is going to stop his entire way of life that makes him happy and start living in a way that will make life harder for him and could cost him his entire sexual enjoyment / life. How is he going to date the girls he likes if he is not the man he was but a girl like them? If he was in to men who liked men, they wont date him because he is a girl now. So he is giving up that. How about his family, are they OK with it? How about his political friends, if Republican he loses all them. This is why the idea of guys just claiming to be girls falls apart and is not happening. Think it through people. If it was a huge problem it would be happening every day in every sport, and it is not. If all the trans women were winning all the awards, setting all the records, and winning every event it would be daily news. But it isn’t because they are not. Look at the scores, look at the totality of the wins, look at the awards. Most often the trans person is working harder and has less support, and only sometimes wins. The records are still held by non trans women. It is simply bigotry. Sort of like when black people were allowed to play sport with white people. It was said white people couldn’t win anymore. Yet they do. They still play and they still win.
She declined to become entangled in verbal traps. Anything else? Yawn. The Cons. are pissed that she is much smarter than they are. The point is that her job isn’t to define things. Her job is to interpret and rule on the law when presented with evidence and arguments in court. Cases which come before the Supreme Court are not going to be simple ones. They will be cases which challenge the edges of established definitions. Asking a candidate to decide without first hearing the arguments in a particular case is basically asking them if they would like to disqualify themselves for the position.
Oh, haha, it’s totally the Fed’s fault, even though CEOs are BRAGGING about their record profits they’ve “earned” by hiking prices across the board for everything under the sun. The GQP is having a sh*tfit over gas prices. They would do the same if Biden did anything to stop Big Oil’s obscene profiteering. The same for every other issue today.
1,3 
Scottie's Playtime 
She declined to become entangled in verbal traps. Anything else? Yawn. The Cons. are pissed that she is much smarter than they are. The point is that her job isn’t to define things. Her job is to interpret and rule on the law when presented with evidence and arguments in court. Cases which come before the Supreme Court are not going to be simple ones. They will be cases which challenge the edges of established definitions. Asking a candidate to decide without first hearing the arguments in a particular case is basically asking them if they would like to disqualify themselves for the position.