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

[Truth Detector]

Nah, as I said, played it brilliantly, she knew there was no point in even attempting an answer, if she had wanted she could have done a real number on the question, using legalities and inquires into context so as to embarrass the hell out of the Republicans, but her approval is certain, so why bother playing into their game

 

[Truth Detector]

She already eviscerated them anyway.

^Brain dead hack obviously has not watched any of it.

 

[AProudLefty]

Huh? What did you just say?

 

[Truth Detector]

The Republicans were a disgrace yesterday.

No amount of whataboutism really changes that.

More stupidity and irony after how the Democrats acted with Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. You really have no shame do you? You're a caricature of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Truth Detector]

NOT IN THIS CONTEXT, she said, referring to the case being discussed.

Fucking right wing rag like the NY POST does the SOS our resident MAGA minions/racists/right wing wonks do....post misleading headlines despite the content of the article NOT supporting it.

Idiots! Reading carefully and comprehensively just isn't in them.

^Mental case only likes the lies he's fed by the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC.

douchebag
noun
douche·bag | \ ˈdüsh-ˌbag \
an obnoxious, offensive, or disgusting person

 

[Truth Detector]

I barely talk about race on this board.

But what do you think - when a Senator calls a few unpaid speeding tickets a "rap sheet"..is that all on the up & up? You think she says that about a white nominee?

de·flect (dĭ-flĕkt′)
To turn aside or cause to turn aside; bend or deviate.

flail (flāl)
n.
To wave or swing vigorously; thrash: flailed my arms to get their attention.
To move vigorously or erratically; thrash about: arms flailing helplessly in the water.
To strike or lash out violently

 

[Wolverine]

I barely talk about race on this board.

But what do you think - when a Senator calls a few unpaid speeding tickets a "rap sheet"..is that all on the up & up? You think she says that about a white nominee?

All you do is call people racist!

 

[Wolverine]

I barely talk about race on this board.

But what do you think - when a Senator calls a few unpaid speeding tickets a "rap sheet"..is that all on the up & up? You think she says that about a white nominee?

So you were ok with the absolute dog and pony show with Kavenaugh!

 

[Legion]

She can't because she would upset the freaks! Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ”And can you provide a definition for the word ​’woman’?” Blackburn continued.​ After a short back-and-forth, Jackson ultimately said: “No, I can’t.”​

Maybe "she" is a "he".

 

[Legion]

Mental case only likes the lies he's fed by the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC.

The chronology of the posts™ proves that you humiliated him.

 

[Truth Detector]

The chronology of the posts™ proves that you humiliated him.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So you agree that they were being trolls?

And not taking baits is being a weasel? You have an odd definition of "weasel".

No, they were being hard on her. What the Democrats did in the Kavanaugh hearing was the work of trolls. She returned the favor by being a weasel.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

advise and consent- like other attributes of Constitutional process are simply being tossed to the wayside

Remember HR1? seeking to overthrow federalism and constitutional purview of state legislatures

Yep. The Left doesn't seek debate, compromise, or rule of law. They want what they want, and nothing is beneath them in getting their way.

 

[AProudLefty]

No, they were being hard on her. What the Democrats did in the Kavanaugh hearing was the work of trolls. She returned the favor by being a weasel.

So being hard on Ketanji that had nothing to do with the Kavanaugh hearing is okay because "they did it too"?

BTW, Kavanaugh wept like a baby while Ketanji eviscerated them was a work of art. Not surprising you refuse to see that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

BTW you always talk about the complex question fallacy. Am I being a weasel for not answering the fallacious questions?

You are if you use an equivocation fallacy to answer them. I haven't seen the Republicans really use the complex question fallacy in their questioning of her. They may have, and I didn't see that, but what I've seen is they've trotted out her record and the positions she's held then asked her if she supports X, Y, or Z. Her answers have been evasive rather than explanatory.

It's been something like this:

Some Republican senator: 'Do you support the use of CRT in public schools?'
Her: 'Well, that's not really a legal question of law that might come before me as a judge...'
Senator: 'It's a simple question. Do you or don't you support using CRT in public schools? You're on a school board after all...'
Her: 'I don't think it has any bearing on my being a judge as it's not a question about law...'

That's what I've seen her do repeatedly. She doesn't answer the simplest of questions, particularly ones that might make her look bad to Republicans. Instead, she's evasive and equivocates. She's a weasel.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So being hard on Ketanji that had nothing to do with the Kavanaugh hearing is okay because "they did it too"?

BTW, Kavanaugh wept like a baby while Ketanji eviscerated them was a work of art. Not surprising you refuse to see that.

I haven't seen the Republicans trot in someone out of Ketanji's past, however vaguely connected, the way the Democrats have done with Bork, then Thomas, then Kavanaugh, and other Conservatives they hate to conduct a televised smear campaign of relentless viciousness. When that happens get back to me. I'll freely admit the Republicans have sunk to where the Democrats on the Left have already gone.

 

[AProudLefty]

Some Republican senator: 'Do you support the use of CRT in public schools?'
Her: 'Well, that's not really a legal question of law that might come before me as a judge...'
Senator: 'It's a simple question. Do you or don't you support using CRT in public schools? You're on a school board after all...'
Her: 'I don't think it has any bearing on my being a judge as it's not a question about law...'

She is correct. It has no bearing on her qualifications as a potential Justice.

And yes it's a complex question fallacy.

"It's a simple question. Do you or don't you support using CRT in public schools?"

It presupposes that the CRT is being taught in public schools. If she says yes, she is admitting that it is taught in the public schools. If she says no, she is admitting that it is taught in the public schools.

Do you see the fallacy? I know you do.

That's what I've seen her do repeatedly. She doesn't answer the simplest of questions, particularly ones that might make her look bad to Republicans. Instead, she's evasive and equivocates. She's a weasel.

Um I am not seeing how you are not seeing that those are bait questions. What are you really doing?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

She is correct. It has no bearing on her qualifications as a potential Justice.

And yes it's a complex question fallacy.

"It's a simple question. Do you or don't you support using CRT in public schools?"

It presupposes that the CRT is being taught in public schools. If she says yes, she is admitting that it is taught in the public schools. If she says no, she is admitting that it is taught in the public schools.

Do you see the fallacy? I know you do.



Um I am not seeing how you are not seeing that those are bait questions. What are you really doing?

Now you're doing a "Clinton." The original is "...it depends on that the meaning of 'is' is..."

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Poor Incels. So unsure of what a woman really is that they need a Supreme Court nominee and Harvard graduate to explain it to them.

and she failed miserably

 

[AProudLefty]

Now you're doing a "Clinton." The original is "...it depends on that the meaning of 'is' is..."

What are you doing?