“And feminism doesn’t require we support shitty women from the consequences of doing and saying shitty things.”

But they’re trying to make the point that it’s not about Wilder. There’s no reason to institute a new award, because they’re still giving the award for the exact same reasons that always applied. The award was never being given in her honor, so there’s no reason that it should have her name on it. They didn’t take her…

I’m well aware that they’re heard en banc. That’s not the biggest issue, though. SCOTUS spends relatively little time hearing arguments - the vast majority of it is spent dealing with the briefs and documentation submitted prior to arguments, the necessary legal research, and in producing the opinions. Much of that…

Yes, it would be temporary. No, such recess appointments have not been ruled unconstitutional. 

Except now you’re arguing against statements I never mind.

They’re not the only one, but it’s safe to say that there’s no shortage of ethically challenged direct sales companies.

It’s possible that it’s actually the official title of the position, which would make capitalizing it grammatically correct.

“You’re just saying that he isn’t bad enough to inconvenience yourself, that is all.”

Except there are no grounds for declaring a recess appointment unconstitutional, especially considering that there have been such appointments in the past. 

Something that could possibly work (translation: could possibly be sold to the public) would be a proposal that would tie the number of justices to the overall population. It’s certainly a fact that the current structure of the court restricts the possible case load to a depressing degree - there are a lot of cases…

Actually, Justices Clinton and Obama would be terrible. Clinton doesn’t have anything remotely the background or experience, and while Obama has the educational specialization, neither of them has any practical experience on the bench.

Kind of overlooking the fact that the reason it’s called the Nobel Prize is because it was established at the direction of Alfred Nobel, who left his entire fortune in trust to fund it, specifically because of his lifelong guilt about the damage done by his invention. A rather sizable difference between that and…

Speaking with an accent isn’t the same as having a poor grasp of the language, though. And book smarts aren’t the same as a certain degree of shrewdness.

Do we need to remove all reference? Probably not. Then again, getting our knickers in a knot because a children’s library association wants to the name of their most prestigious award to be a little less associated with “wow, it’s great to be white!” history probably isn’t necessary, either.

The attempts to ban the book from the school don’t actually have a thing to do with either the organization or the award, though. In fact, the organization itself is very much against book banning.

You realize that the books weren’t written until the late 1930s and early 1940s, right? Racism might have been more acceptable then than now, but it’s hard to buy that considering the amount of screeching just in this comment thread alone.

Not even close to the same tone in those books, so either you’ve neither actually read them or you have a remarkable problem with reading comprehension.

So the exact same award from the exact same organization with the exact same prize is meaningless if it’s the Children’s Literature Legacy Award?

Slight quibble - it’s irrelevant whether DC law protects political affiliation because the restaurant isn’t in DC.

Surprisingly, it’s even more narrow than you state. It’s not that the CRC said the baker’s argument was bullshit, it was that at least one CRC member made comments to that effect before hearing any evidence in the case, and then made personally insulting comments about the baker’s religious views during the hearing.…