swordfish Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 (edited) Does anyone else think it spells trouble when a SCOTUS nominee "can't" or won't give a basic definition of "woman". It (IMHO) indicates her obvious leanings towards the progressive ultra-left wing line of thinking. Would it be too much trouble for a well qualified, highly educated sitting Judge to answer that question "female"? She used the term "woman" describing herself yesterday along with the term "black" which I am pretty sure she could and probably would proffer a definition of that word. Bad answer (IMHO). https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543 As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.” “I can’t — ” Jackson replied. “You can’t?” Blackburn said. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked. The Tennessee Republican’s line of questioning hit on nearly every political hot-button issue, from critical race theory to teaching children about gender identity in schools to Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer on the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s team. Jackson said her role as a judge would be to address disputes about a definition and to interpret the law. “The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn said, before turning to Thomas, who has been at the center of the debate over policies for transgender athletes. Blackburn asked what message allowing Thomas to compete sends to “girls who aspire to compete and win in sports?” “Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends. If you’re asking me about the legal issues related to it — those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court,” Jackson said before Blackburn cut her off, to explain her view of what message this delivers to young women. “I think it tells our girls that their voices don’t matter,” Blackburn responded. “I think it tells them that they’re second-class citizens. And parents want to have a Supreme Court justice who is committed to preserving parental autonomy and protecting our nation’s children.” Edited March 23, 2022 by swordfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 50 minutes ago, swordfish said: Does anyone else think it spells trouble when a SCOTUS nominee "can't" or won't give a basic definition of "woman". It (IMHO) indicates her obvious leanings towards the progressive ultra-left wing line of thinking. Would it be too much trouble for a well qualified, highly educated sitting Judge to answer that question "female"? She used the term "woman" describing herself yesterday along with the term "black" which I am pretty sure she could and probably would proffer a definition of that word. Bad answer (IMHO). https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543 As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.” “I can’t — ” Jackson replied. “You can’t?” Blackburn said. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said. “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked. The Tennessee Republican’s line of questioning hit on nearly every political hot-button issue, from critical race theory to teaching children about gender identity in schools to Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer on the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s team. Jackson said her role as a judge would be to address disputes about a definition and to interpret the law. “The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn said, before turning to Thomas, who has been at the center of the debate over policies for transgender athletes. Blackburn asked what message allowing Thomas to compete sends to “girls who aspire to compete and win in sports?” “Senator, I’m not sure what message that sends. If you’re asking me about the legal issues related to it — those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court,” Jackson said before Blackburn cut her off, to explain her view of what message this delivers to young women. “I think it tells our girls that their voices don’t matter,” Blackburn responded. “I think it tells them that they’re second-class citizens. And parents want to have a Supreme Court justice who is committed to preserving parental autonomy and protecting our nation’s children.” Because she is a political hatchet man/pawn. She read the left's talking points. We see right through the bull$hit that many of these judges, politicians and lawyers spew. Sit on the fence and whomever tosses them the most $$$, that is which way they fall. Stand for something. Fall for anything. As a legal, tax paying American, I do not want her on the high court for 2 simple reasons. 1) she coddles child pornography abusers. 2) she is not smart enough to understand the difference between a man and a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 23, 2022 Author Share Posted March 23, 2022 9 minutes ago, DE said: As a legal, tax paying American, I do not want her on the high court NEWS FLASH!!! 🤣😂 Thank goodness the people who wrote the Constitution were a lot smarter than you, so appointment to the Court is not a matter of popularity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Bobref said: NEWS FLASH!!! 🤣😂 Thank goodness the people who wrote the Constitution were a lot smarter than you, so appointment to the Court is not a matter of popularity. REALLY????????? NeVeR kNeW tHaT. Thanks for enlightening me. Must've been that ND and IU education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 2 hours ago, Bobref said: NEWS FLASH!!! 🤣😂 Thank goodness the people who wrote the Constitution were a lot smarter than you, so appointment to the Court is not a matter of popularity. Agreed......But a woman who can't (or won't) define a woman as female when asked to is a sure sign of either a political hack, or an idiot. I go with the first one, because she isn't an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 23, 2022 Author Share Posted March 23, 2022 31 minutes ago, swordfish said: Agreed......But a woman who can't (or won't) define a woman as female when asked to is a sure sign of either a political hack, or an idiot. I go with the first one, because she isn't an idiot. You’re embarrassing yourself. Whether you know it or not. … And you probably don’t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Bobref said: You’re embarrassing yourself. Whether you know it or not. … And you probably don’t. Yeah, thanks you pompous A$$#0!E........ At least Ginsburg (who also wasn't an idiot, in fact a pretty smart Judge) had some definition of "woman" in her head, and most likely would have an answer to the Senator's question. In today's polarized society, this SCOTUS nominee is skillfully dodging these questions so her true liberal beliefs can remain hidden, and we're all supposed just go Uh-huh, yep, she's pretty smart (Which yes she is) so why worry about her, she'll make a great SCOTUS Judge. She's way further right wing than RBG. The real Ginsburg made this point in her majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, which ordered Virginia Military Institute, the state’s all-male military school, to become coed. There, she wrote that “[p]hysical differences between men and women … are enduring,” and, quoting Ballard v. United States, added, “[t]he two sexes are not fungible.” https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/why-ginsburg-fought-discrimination-the-basis-sex-not-gender-identity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 I just hope she's better at her job than Kamala Harris is at hers....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 23, 2022 Author Share Posted March 23, 2022 Just now, swordfish said: I just hope she's better at her job than Kamala Harris is at hers....... On that, at least, we can agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 1 hour ago, swordfish said: Yeah, thanks you pompous A$$#0!E........ At least Ginsburg (who also wasn't an idiot, in fact a pretty smart Judge) had some definition of "woman" in her head, and most likely would have an answer to the Senator's question. In today's polarized society, this SCOTUS nominee is skillfully dodging these questions so her true liberal beliefs can remain hidden, and we're all supposed just go Uh-huh, yep, she's pretty smart (Which yes she is) so why worry about her, she'll make a great SCOTUS Judge. She's way further right wing than RBG. The real Ginsburg made this point in her majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, which ordered Virginia Military Institute, the state’s all-male military school, to become coed. There, she wrote that “[p]hysical differences between men and women … are enduring,” and, quoting Ballard v. United States, added, “[t]he two sexes are not fungible.” https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/why-ginsburg-fought-discrimination-the-basis-sex-not-gender-identity Ran out of emojis to give. +1 1 hour ago, swordfish said: Yeah, thanks you pompous A$$#0!E........ At least Ginsburg (who also wasn't an idiot, in fact a pretty smart Judge) had some definition of "woman" in her head, and most likely would have an answer to the Senator's question. In today's polarized society, this SCOTUS nominee is skillfully dodging these questions so her true liberal beliefs can remain hidden, and we're all supposed just go Uh-huh, yep, she's pretty smart (Which yes she is) so why worry about her, she'll make a great SCOTUS Judge. She's way further right wing than RBG. The real Ginsburg made this point in her majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, which ordered Virginia Military Institute, the state’s all-male military school, to become coed. There, she wrote that “[p]hysical differences between men and women … are enduring,” and, quoting Ballard v. United States, added, “[t]he two sexes are not fungible.” https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/why-ginsburg-fought-discrimination-the-basis-sex-not-gender-identity Ginsburg also supported the mass murdering of unborn humans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 23, 2022 Share Posted March 23, 2022 Define what a woman is please. KBJ: I can't. I am not a biologist. 🤣 And this lady is going to sit on the high court? What a f****d up country we live in. And there are people that will defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 24, 2022 Author Share Posted March 24, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 OR - Just wait until age of consent and let it decide it's identity? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 2 hours ago, swordfish said: OR - Just wait until age of consent and let it decide it's identity? Triggered the lefties Sword. 😂 Don’t worry Bob. I’m at 48% 🔋 life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 24, 2022 Share Posted March 24, 2022 6 hours ago, swordfish said: Hilarious and true. Hitting a nerve Sword. 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 On 2/25/2022 at 12:42 PM, Bobref said: Do you think her confirmation vote will be unanimous? I don’t. After Cory "william shakespeare" Booker's idiotic performance and this lady's inability to answer the simplest of questions, I do not even know if she will get confirmed. Thank goodness the R's are nowhere near as big of scumbags as some of the democrats were for Kavanaugh or ACB. And people wonder why this country is so divided, look no further than what the Democrats stand for. Evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 25, 2022 Author Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, DE said: I do not even know if she will get confirmed I would be open to a small wager. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 25, 2022 Author Share Posted March 25, 2022 Glad to see that not all the Republicans in the Senate are behaving as badly as Democrats did during the hearings for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett. Sen. Sasse (R-Neb.) said: "A lot of the jack-assery we see around here is people mugging for the cameras." At least he’s willing to admit what’s going on in this hearing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Bobref said: I would be open to a small wager. You talking to the wrong guy dude. I don’t bet. Even when I know it’s a sure thing. I. Don’t. Bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 25, 2022 Author Share Posted March 25, 2022 6 hours ago, DE said: You talking to the wrong guy dude. I don’t bet. Even when I know it’s a sure thing. I. Don’t. Bet. Convenient. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 You have to admit, even if you are her biggest fan, she attempted (successfully I would say) at very turn to hide her extremely progressive leanings even to the point you could even make the case to call it lying. Nevermind the "soft on child predators" line of questions conservative Senators tried to hang their hats on since I can see her point in her answers there and can agree for the most part. BUT - Her claiming to be "not familiar" with CRT when she clearly (and it's documented) gave very favorable and glowing speeches regarding it's founders and culture. Her incredible answer when asked to define "woman" indicates a deliberate misdirection or deflection rather than an honest answer making it difficult to identify her judicial or personal philosophy while obviously pandering to the LGBTQ123XYZ..... side of the liberals. SF predicts she will be the most left-wing radical on the SCOTUS when confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Bobref said: Convenient. Not at all. You appear to be an intelligent man. You are a lawyer. You like to read and research. This isn't difficult. Figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE Posted March 25, 2022 Share Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, swordfish said: You have to admit, even if you are her biggest fan, she attempted (successfully I would say) at very turn to hide her extremely progressive leanings even to the point you could even make the case to call it lying. Nevermind the "soft on child predators" line of questions conservative Senators tried to hang their hats on since I can see her point in her answers there and can agree for the most part. BUT - Her claiming to be "not familiar" with CRT when she clearly (and it's documented) gave very favorable and glowing speeches regarding it's founders and culture. Her incredible answer when asked to define "woman" indicates a deliberate misdirection or deflection rather than an honest answer making it difficult to identify her judicial or personal philosophy while obviously pandering to the LGBTQ123XYZ..... side of the liberals. SF predicts she will be the most left-wing radical on the SCOTUS when confirmed. She has shown her true colors. Radical left wing extremist. Her resume proves she empathizes with pedophiles, drug dealers, and doesn't even know she is a woman. The left has turned the US (once the greatest country on Earth) into a f*cking laughing stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted March 25, 2022 Author Share Posted March 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, DE said: Not at all. You appear to be an intelligent man. You are a lawyer. You like to read and research. This isn't difficult. Figure it out. I’m sure I’ve got the answer. I just can’t figure out your question. 🤣😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts