New dumbed down qualifications to sit on SCOTUS

[marke]

What are her defining positions which place her on "the left?" And where does that place start for you? Just left of center, or radical left?

She supports abortion. That proves she is willing to face God with the blood of millions of babies on her hands.

 

[marke]

Now she's "the face of the left?" So you don't have any defining positions you can give me which place her on the left?

She supports abortion and is soft on child pornographers. And that is just a start.

 

[marke]

Blackburn and others were hoping to get either that or a quote to use back against trans supporters. Even Judge Jackson said "a woman is not a male who thinks he is a woman".

Maybe Judge Jackson is like all democrat candidates, willing to lie or say anything that will gain approval from those to whom she is speaking, but once settled in will show she is willing only to please the leftists who put her there.

 

[ok doser]

... Blackburn ... even lassoed in "the dangers of progressive education."

Now, who is that meant for?

People who recognize the dangers of progressive education.

In other words, people who aren't retards like you

 

[User Name]

the concept of gender is more complicated than Dick and Jane depicts.

This issue is a perfect example of liberals outsmarting themselves by being too clever by half.

 

[marke]

I realize that now.



Inferences are derived from premises that may or may not be accurate or true. Just putting that out there. The right-wing assume every Democrat is a leftist, when many if not most Democrats, including the current president, are not leftist. They may be liberal, but not leftist. Ask a European if they think the average Democratic politician is a leftist.



You actually said:

"The simple definition of the word "woman," which everyone knows anyway and for which there is no point in pretending that one doesn't know, is not "transphobic." And then doubled down with "Hear this: The dictionary definition of the word "woman" is not transphobic!"

When no one here said that the definition was transphobic.

Again: the question was asked for, and dog-whistling to, the transphobic conservative base. The base who are screaming at school board meetings, and burning books. That's all. I wonder by how much Blackburn's political donations will increase.



I know how it went.

There is no reason to believe she will defend police officers from thugs and their neighbors who falsely accuse them of abuse. There is no reason to believe she will oppose expanding and packing SCOTUS with nothing but flaming leftist liberals. There is no reason to believe she will oppose all forms of voter fraud. There is no reason to believe she will strongly defend the human and civil rights of conservatives or the religious rights of Christians. There is no reason to believe she will oppose Marxism and the destruction of free markets and capitalism in America.

And so forth.

 

[marke]

A biologist will tell you there are three kinds of differences typically seen between genders including genital, genetic, and brain differences. Many individuals do not have all three differences! Most with less typical constellation do not consider themselves trans per se. But, the concept of gender is more complicated than Dick and Jane depicts. The Judge's invocation of a biologist is a deference that courts have to experts over personal understandings. Only particular things are judicially noticed - ie stipulated as commonly understood. In the past male and female was a matter judicially noticed. Our understandng of gender is more sophisticated and it is not automatically judicially noticed in some court rooms.

She should not have suggested a biologist would be able to answer the question either, considering so many biologists are also leftists who also cannot justify leftist transgender insanity.

 

[annabenedetti]

At no point did I say you said that.

Hard not to see it any other way.

Do you not see Blackburn tossed out a gotcha question, meant to provide red meat to the transphobic conservative base and Judge Jackson could see this? I guarantee even if she answered the question satisfactorily for the right, it wouldn't sway a single GOP senator to vote for her who wasn't already going to vote for her.

The simple definition of the word "woman," which everyone knows anyway and for which there is no point in pretending that one doesn't know, is not "transphobic." Wow.

As for my explaining more than once that the red meat is Blackburn's question and not the definition of woman - and not seeming to be able to get that idea across to you, I give up. Guess we should leave it at that.

 

[marke]

Last time I'm gonna try: Blackburn's question was the red meat. She even lassoed in "the dangers of progressive education."

There was no back-and forth. There was no ultimately.

Directly after the initial question, Jackson said: "Can I provide a definition? No. I can't.

Blackburn: "You can't?"

Jackson: "Not in this context. I'm not a biologist."
How much more straightforward could she be?

If that is how to poroperly answer questions then if she had been asked,

"Do you think late term fetuses feel much pain during D&C abortions?"

she could have responded,

"How do I know, I am not the baby's mother."

 

[Skeeter]

She should not have suggested a biologist would be able to answer the question either, considering so many biologists are also leftists who also cannot justify leftist transgender insanity.

People become more left when they study higher level science.

 

[marke]

A biologist will tell you there are three kinds of differences typically seen between genders including genital, genetic, and brain differences. Many individuals do not have all three differences! Most with less typical constellation do not consider themselves trans per se. But, the concept of gender is more complicated than Dick and Jane depicts. The Judge's invocation of a biologist is a deference that courts have to experts over personal understandings. Only particular things are judicially noticed - ie stipulated as commonly understood. In the past male and female was a matter judicially noticed. Our understandng of gender is more sophisticated and it is not automatically judicially noticed in some court rooms.

Any biologist whose political biases have left him unable to define differences between biological males and biological females has sacrificed his intelligence and credibility on the depraved altar of secular humanism.

 

[marke]

People become more left when they study higher level science.

Instructional video from the perspective of a fool who has rejected God.

Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Skeeter]

Any biologist whose political biases have left him unable to define differences between biological males and biological females has sacrificed his intelligence and credibility on the depraved altar of secular humanism.

Fact Free analysis is your specialty. Label and pivot, Label and Pivot. You will pull a muscle doing that repeatedly.

 

[User Name]

In a related story...

 

[marke]

In a related story...

View attachment 2996

Fox News has wicked managers as well, denying the Lord and embracing the world of iniquity.

 

[User Name]

As for my explaining more than once that the red meat is Blackburn's question and not the definition of woman - and not seeming to be able to get that idea across to you, I give up.

Here's the thing: By not admitting to the universally agreed-upon definition of the word "woman" (something even a child could do), Judge Jackson gave the rabids all of the red meat they could have hoped for on this issue! Expect the Republicans to run with it. Expect to see it in political advertisements during the midterm election season. Expect the majority of the general public to go into agreement with Republicans on this issue. Score one for the Republicans.

 

[User Name]

Blackburn and others were hoping to get either that or a quote to use back against trans supporters. Even Judge Jackson said "a woman is not a male who thinks he is a woman".

The question to ask here is: How can Judge Jackson say that "a woman is not a male who thinks he is a woman" when Judge Jackson does not know what a woman is?

 

[Skeeter]

The question to ask here is: How can Judge Jackson say that "a woman is not a male who thinks he is a woman" when Judge Jackson does not know what a woman is?

They had her in a situation that no answer was a good answer politically. I describe an either/or situation. Her non-answer was the best choice although I do agree that it doesn't read well to the average Joe, and a series of muddled statements supporting cultural sensitivity will be counterproductive when it comes to the election. Actually, this is just like gay marriage as a wedge issue that is divisive now but will mature later in the general public.

 

[marke]

I ask Jackson, since she claims to believe the Bible, why does God make clear distinctions between males and female that prospective Christian judges find hard to support?

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[Right Divider]

They had her in a situation that no answer was a good answer politically.

And yet there was a simple and true answer that she could have given.

Her non-answer was the best choice

Why was it "the best choice"? It was actually silly.

although I do agree that it doesn't read well to the average Joe,

That's because most people still know the truth.

and a series of muddled statements supporting cultural sensitivity will be counterproductive when it comes to the election.

Again, because most people are not radical untruthers.

Actually, this is just like gay marriage as a wedge issue that is divisive now but will mature later in the general public.

Indeed, the decline of morals is continuing in many ways.