Originally Posted by Pogue:
She got owned on Tucker and effed up.
Tuck’s mistake was not asking for the names of these supposed “legal scholars” who told her this. She can’t refuse to answer that, or else she’s admitting it’s a secretive process kept from her own voters.
According to Jack Posobiec, the “scholars” are from our fine friends at The Federalist Society. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I didn't get that but then it was only a short clip. At least she appeared. Look, I didn't like it at first when I got one of my subscribed emails about it calling it a betrayal. I'm just willing to hear her side. If you've got something specific policy-wise about how her position doesn't do what she claims, I am willing to listen but just saying she was owned by Tucker, who has wrong on occasion, isn't going to do it for me. Same goes to PB too, but I see he later posted something specific.
Originally Posted by :
...But most notably, she rejected their calls for bans at the collegiate level, telling lawmakers it could mean South Dakota athletes lose out in national tournaments, as the NCAA has inclusion policies for transgender student athletes.
"While I certainly do not always agree with the actions these sanctioning bodies take, I understand that collegiate athletics requires such a system – a fifty-state patchwork is not workable," she said...
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Has the NCAA ever sued a state?
I don't know. It would be good to know. You tell me. I am just being devils advocate here.
What I do know is political activists have been busy using the courts what they can't get by legislation; or groups come to their aid and sue for them or use someone who claims discrimination or were harmed.
Does her legislature have enough votes to override her if she vetoes it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Tuck’s mistake was not asking for the names of these supposed “legal scholars” who told her this. She can’t refuse to answer that, or else she’s admitting it’s a secretive process kept from her own voters.
According to Jack Posobiec, the “scholars” are from our fine friends at The Federalist Society.
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Has the NCAA ever sued a state?
Probably means that Biden Administration would sue them under title 9 or individual athlete would sue them. Not sure where the law is currently but I can see the first happening real fast. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I don't know. It would be good to know. You tell me. I am just being devils advocate here.
The only example I could find was a case where NCAA sued New Jersey after they passed a bill allowing gambling on college sports. The case went to the SCOTUS.
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
The only example I could find was a case where NCAA sued New Jersey after they passed a bill allowing gambling on college sports. The case went to the SCOTUS.
And the NCAA lost.
What did it cost NJ? Noem said it would be very expensive to defend. Maybe that's not true? Then again, she doesn't have the huge population that is taxed and taxed higher in her state too. Perhaps she's a fiscal conservative for real? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
What did it cost NJ? Noem said it would be very expensive to defend. Maybe that's not true? Then again, she doesn't have the huge population that is taxed and taxed higher in her state too. Perhaps she's a fiscal conservative for real?
Idaho passed this law last year. The NCAA didn’t sue them.
Okay this Townhall article convinces me more. The Syle & Form is for things like typos and grammar, but it does appear to gut the bill because it would "eliminate all reasonable enforcement mechanisms, neutering the legislation so much as to render it meaningless."
How she froze out advocates for it and only listened to those against it such as Chamber of Commerce and SD Board of Regents—corporate wings of GOP.
