Live Blog

Here is your live blog for the day.

Ban on skirts ... for gender neutrality.

I thought the sexual revolution was supposed to be about freedom...

Forty secondary schools across England have banned skirts to be more inclusive of transgender pupils, Britain's The Daily Mail reported.

At least 40 secondary schools have banned girls from wearing skirts in a bid to cater for transgender pupils, it has emerged.

Schools are opting for gender-neutral uniform policies under which boys and girls both wear trousers, while others are considering similar changes, it is claimed.

They have followed the lead of Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex, which scrapped its female uniform last September, also citing fears over the sexualisation of young women.

It comes alongside news that a leading private school is bringing in make-up experts to help pupils who feel anxious about their appearance.

Also, some religious women choose not to wear pants, as a statement of femininity. Should they be forced into gender-neutral outfits?

This made me laugh:

Sounds about right.

Hat tip: AoSHQ.

THREAD.

Read the whole thing.

It was about 70,000 or so Obama-to-Trump voters who put Trump over the top in PA, WI, and MI -- so the Democrats would be wise to listen to all the thoughtful O-to-T voters they can find.

Will the Democrats listen is the question, and I'd wager it will take another shellacking or two before their ears finally perk up.

Blue wave?

Ben Shapiro offers some cautions about Judge Brent Kavanaugh:

Kavanaugh has stated that his judicial philosophy is textualist, although some commentators suggest that his textualism is not as strong as Gorsuch's.Kavanaugh, like Chief Justice Roberts, is known for working across the aisle. On the other side of the ledger, critics suggest (correctly in my view) that Kavanaugh upheld Obamacare in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services as well as in Seven-Sky v. Holder, in which he stated that the Obamacare penalties were actually “taxes.” Critics have also pointed to his opinion in a case regarding whether the government could compel priests to cover birth control under Obamacare; in that dissent, he held that there was a compelling government interest in providing birth control, but that the government could find less restrictive means of doing so.

I'm hearing from sources -- one of whom supported Kavanaugh's appointment to the federal bench — that he has been a huge disappointment because of his penchant for writing opinions that are as incoherent as they are twisted in their logic.

Which means he'll probably get the nod, my inner cynic is telling me.