The authors wrote that the Supreme Court decision had a "benefit" and a "cost." The benefit, it said, was to strike down a rarely enforced law that could probably not be passed today, while the cost was to "create the possibility that the court, and not Congress or state legislatures, might decide whether same-sex marriages were legal."
Gee, imagine that, a textbook that actually gives a Constitutional perspective.
i m a publik scewl teechur. I teach both English and history. My US government book is filled with liberal bs. It mentions “founders” not “founding fathers”, and it also refers to the Constitution as a “living document” and “an evolving document.” My senior English textbook has The Crucible in it, and the side notes want me to point out similarities between witch hunting and Joe McCarthy.
Last year an international collection of hundreds of scientists and government officials unanimously approved wording that said the scientific community had "very high confidence," meaning more than 90 percent likelihood, that global warming is caused by humans.Of course if the citation of the international conference on climate change were accurate it would have said:
Last year an international collection of hundreds of government officials and a few scientists unanimously approved wording that said the scientific community ...
Somebody need to give this turd a smack in the back of his head
Good god. This punk kid can find CONSERVATIVE bias, but can’t find any LIBERAL bias?!
Unbelievable.
This is blatant evidence that conservativism didn’t die a natural death as some have said; it’s being beaten to death right in front of us.
Censorship for presenting an alternative view?
How Mugabe.
Hah. Funny anyone protesting the WashPost/NYT’s take on the story - which the text book cited accuratly.