Jackson, Biden's Supreme Court pick, refuses to define the word 'woman'

Hoosier Daddy said:
it is a legitimate concern, when people who judge let their religious views override legal and scientific facts. any judge who wants to change roe - wade is probably letting their religious views override science. not wanting to define woman is not a big deal, except to stupid fuck right wing goons.
Click to expand...

Oh... So, it's a "legitimate concern" when the candidate is someone YOU disagree with, but "not a big deal" when the candidate is someone you support... Got it!
 
dukkha said:
Ridiculous," media personality Piers Morgan tweeted. "I’m not a brain surgeon but I know what a brain is. This is where ‘progressive’ thinking leads - to a terror of stating basic unarguable facts lest it offend the woke brigade."

"The Party of Science," proclaimed RealClearInvestigations deputy editor Benjamin Weingarten. "Thing is, this is a perfect illustration of where progressive ideology leads us: To a position in which a Supreme Court nominee won’t admit the most basic of truths."

"Wow, our WOKE world has come to this that an educated woman can't even define herself...

some called it out as a form of virtue signaling, with conservative LGBTQ author Chad Felix Greene writing, "This has become the new way progressives express their moral superiority without revealing their intellectual weakness."

Editor-in-chief of The Federalist Mollie Hemingway added, "The new leftist orthodoxy is that ‘woman’ can’t be defined scientifically or logically and that if you do so define it, you must be canceled and destroyed. Healthy."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/outrage-ketanji-brown-jackson-tells-senators-woman-bizarre
Click to expand...

As I said, and as shown here, it has nothing to do with Ketanji Brown Jackson, what she believes or doesn't, it is all about bringing the right's cultural issues front and center for their moment in the sun, turning a near guarantee nomination into a discussion about what defines a women, CRT, child pornography, and of course, Fox's prime time themes
 
dukkha said:
Other Twitter critics pounced on Jackson invoking biology in her response. Informed Dissent podcaster Leonydus Johnson pointed out, "In her asinine deflection, she accidentally acknowledged that being a woman is defined by biology."

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon noted that "to say biologists must answer this question is to suggest that womanhood is tied to biology (which is what conservatives argue)."

"If she knows it's a biological question then she knows the answer," American Commitment President Phil Kerpen chimed in.

Some legal experts mused on the judicial implications, like Harmeet K. Dhillon, founder and CEO of The Center for American Liberty, who asked, "How do you adjudicate Title VII claims without being able to answer this question? Title IX?"
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the "Babylon Bee CEO," other tweeters, and "some legal experts" now constitutes noteworthy opinions?

No wonder you people are such easy prey for demogogues
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh... So, it's a "legitimate concern" when the candidate is someone YOU disagree with, but "not a big deal" when the candidate is someone you support... Got it!
Click to expand...

did she ever say anything like this- In 1998, soon after finishing law school, Barrett co-authored an article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which ultimately concluded, “that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.”
 
6x67f5r7eyo81.jpg
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
did she ever say anything like this- In 1998, soon after finishing law school, Barrett co-authored an article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which ultimately concluded, “that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.”
Click to expand...

She was followed and groomed by the Federalist society by her extreme religious belief and her allowing them to enter into her life and decisions. Barret was a predictable vote before the opening came up. Kavanaugh was too. They knew his problems, but knew his opinions and were willing to ignore them for the predictability.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
With Barrett, the Democrats zeroed in on her religion like the goofy Left-wing clowns they are...
Click to expand...

They were correct because her extreme religiosity has everything to do with her decisions. That was germane to how she would vote on issues that were in the courts future. How you define women will not be. So wrong again.
 
dukkha said:
"Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?" Blackburn pressed. Jackson did not comment on the matter.

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’" the senator asked.

"Can I provide a definition? No," Jackson responded. "I can't."

"You can't?" Blackburn asked.

"Not in this context, I'm not a biologist," the judge replied.

"Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?" Blackburn pressed.

"Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide," Jackson said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...e-court-pick-refuses-to-define-the-word-woman
Click to expand...

Marsha Blackburn just earned herself a place of the list of the GOP's biggest idiots, along with Boebert, Greene, Gohmert et al. She's an embarrassment to the party.
 
Nordberg said:
They were correct because her extreme religiosity has everything to do with her decisions. That was germane to how she would vote on issues that were in the courts future. How you define women will not be. So wrong again.
Click to expand...

And Jackson's extreme Leftist views are due the same scrutiny.
 
archives said:
Wait a minute, the "Babylon Bee CEO," other tweeters, and "some legal experts" now constitutes noteworthy opinions?

No wonder you people are such easy prey for demogogues
Click to expand...
you dont need to be a Constitutional authority to see her ducking the question -do you even follow this logic>
"In her asinine deflection, she accidentally acknowledged that being a woman is defined by biology."
Click to expand...
it's straightforward and undeniable unlike Jackson's wiggling to get off the hook
 
dukkha said:
you dont need to be a Constitutional authority to see her ducking the question -do you even follow this logic>

it's straightforward and undeniable unlike Jackson's wiggling to get off the hook
Click to expand...

Perhaps, “dodging” a stupid question, but brilliant, Blackburn was floored with her reply, anticipating she could dissect and reframe her answer and then left with nothing

And Jackson was correct, you would have to put it into context if you really wanted an answer
 
dukkha said:
you dont need to be a Constitutional authority to see her ducking the question -do you even follow this logic>

it's straightforward and undeniable unlike Jackson's wiggling to get off the hook
Click to expand...

Have you stopped beating your wife?
 
dukkha said:
"Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?" Blackburn pressed. Jackson did not comment on the matter.

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’" the senator asked.

"Can I provide a definition? No," Jackson responded. "I can't."

"You can't?" Blackburn asked.

"Not in this context, I'm not a biologist," the judge replied.

"Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?" Blackburn pressed.

"Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide," Jackson said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...e-court-pick-refuses-to-define-the-word-woman
Click to expand...
I heard about this!!
 
dukkha said:
"Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?" Blackburn pressed. Jackson did not comment on the matter.

"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’" the senator asked.

"Can I provide a definition? No," Jackson responded. "I can't."

"You can't?" Blackburn asked.

"Not in this context, I'm not a biologist," the judge replied.

"Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?" Blackburn pressed.

"Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide," Jackson said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...e-court-pick-refuses-to-define-the-word-woman
Click to expand...

She's no mathematician, either. Does she know that 2+2≠5?
 
I listened to Ted Cruz doing his best reincarnation of Senator Joe McCarthy on yesterday's coverage of the SCOTUS Hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson . What a POS this guy is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top