Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/14/2026 6:04:06 AM PST by V_TWIN
At one point during their pro-trans boys in girls’ locker/bathrooms argument, the ACLU lawyer Kathleen Hartnett was asked by Justice Samuel Alito to define a man, boy, woman, or girl. Hartnett appeared to panic as she realized Alito had brilliantly set a trap for her. Unable to answer the question, Hartnett appears to panic, telling him “they” don’t have a definition.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
From the looks of that aclu lawyer, I'm not surprised she cant define males and females.
-
Confused but Democrats have a plan once they reclaim the triple crown of House, Senate, and Presidency to end this once and for all for their side by passing the Equality Act to make gender identity protected and that determines who plays male and female.
Combined with plans to phase out men’s sport to meet Title IX, it’s exactly what the Left wants. Males claim to be females because there is no room for them.
In a sane world we wouldn’t even be talking about this. But democRATS aren’t sane, so...
They insist they don’t believe in gender but claim we need a female president.
This supposed inabilility to define man or woman, boy or girl, has got to be the greatest legal fiction ever conceived in the mind of demented lawyers.
Has the Supreme Court ever been asked to rule on a concept that cannot be defined?
Obviously, any definition at all would completely undercut their argument, which is why they refuse.
The lawyers should be charged with contempt of court.
It appears that Atty. Kathleen “Pat” Hartnett has a lantern jaw.
Too bad that Justice Alito is considering retiring later this year, although, I can certainly understand wanting to live without that heavy, steady partisan pressure from the Dems. Same thing for Justice Thomas. These men are nearing 80 years old. They have served their country well, but are only human.
Perhaps our good (though Nerdy) friend Ted Cruz can accept the baton from Alito. That is where he belongs for the future. How unfortunate that, as far as I know, Tulsi Gabbard does not have a law degree. She seems like a woman of great wisdom.
It’s not like that question hasn’t been asked before in similar legal debates? That should have been mastered in trial preparation before the hearing. Don’t go before the USSC unprepared on the case you are presenting. Don’t waste their time.
And don’t forget the remedial class Supreme Court justice, Kentanji Brown, when she was asked as well -
“In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
Jackson, appearing confused, responded, “I’m not a biologist.”
High paid and heavily perked ACLU “civil rights” lawyer Kathleen Hartnett
couldn’t answer Justice Alito when asked to “define” a man, boy, woman, or girl,
stupidly saying “they” don’t have a definition.
No definition? I guess the ACLU-types never went to grammar school.
Right out of the Bible.
Thessalonians 2: 10-12
“For with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved, … For this reason God sends them strong delusions, that they should believe the lies, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Grok:
Joe Thompson joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota in 2014 (Obama administration).
Harry Jacobs is a veteran/career Assistant U.S. Attorney; no specific initial hire date found in public records, but long tenure predates recent administrations (likely Obama or earlier).
Melinda Williams is a veteran/career Assistant U.S. Attorney (former criminal chief); no specific initial hire date publicly available, but described as longtime prosecutor (likely Obama or earlier).
Thomas Calhoun-Lopez is a career Assistant U.S. Attorney (lead on gang racketeering cases); no specific initial hire date found, but established tenure (likely Obama or earlier).
Ruth Schneider is a career Assistant U.S. Attorney; no specific initial hire date or tenure details publicly detailed.
Tom Hollenhorst (Thomas Hollenhorst) is a longtime prosecutor (recently handled large-scale drug cases); described as announcing retirement alongside resignations, with extended career (likely Obama or earlier).
I guess the plaintiff side has a good point that these trans athletes are not gaming the system. they truly are bona fide women and really belong on women’s teams.
It’s clearly not a scam just to beat up on females, reap cheap medals, and worse.
Why, just look at all the trans-men that are successfully playing and excelling in men’s football, wrestling, power lifting, tennis, etc. Oh, wait …….
The fact that she said explicitly that she’s not a biologist...tells us...that it’s a question of biology (and not culture) and that can only be “a matter of chromosomes”....and that means XX or XY....and that means female or male....There is no XYZ.
Good catch-——she explicitly said that she’s not a “biologist”
.......so then it’s a question of biology (not culture)......
“a matter of chromosomes”....XX or XY....female or male.
Biology Lesson:
XY
XX
But later she was proud to be the ‘first Black woman’ selected to serve on the Supreme Court.
You can’t win with these people. They aren’t honest and always insist on having everything both ways.
American
Communist
Lawyers
Union
Sydney - just dayummm....
Somebody needs to put a smile on Sydney’s face ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.