Posted on 03/24/2022 9:19:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
She can define it. She didn’t disclose her definition.
Who cares? She could say there are 57 genders that are impossible to determine in a finite fashion at any moment in time... and she’ll still be confirmed. Behold, the power of being a black woman.
What was all that garbage about white privilege?
It’s incredible how you have Dick Durbin coming out and saying some of the questions to Judge Jackson have been teetering near the line.
What the h-ll were you guys doing with Kavanaugh? And what were you doing questioning Amy Coney Barrett’s faith? What were you doing?”
Really, Jackson Has Suffered Nothing Compared To What Democrats Put Kavanaugh Through.
The truth is Republicans Are Pursuing Legitimate Questions About Ketanji Brown Jackson. They’re not going after baseless claims of sexual infidelity. They’re not going after her faith and trying to make a character out of this judge as some creature from the handmaid’s tale. They’re not asking whether she liked beer in college.
They want to know her JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY and that is where the questioned were focused on. Unfortunately, Ketanji was ALARMINGLY EVASIVE in answering these legitimate questions.
Those are grounds for disqualification.
When this woke nominee refused to define "woman", saying she's not a biologist, I would have followed with:
"So, you will recuse yourself from any cases involving biology?"
"You will recuse yourself from any cases involving "gender equity" or "when does life begin?" because you're not a biologist?"
I would have loved to see a follow a up question asking if she was a man or a woman and how does she know.
Republicans are baffled that Ketanji Brown Jackson can’t say what a woman is: ‘It is a simple question’:
Sen. Marsha Blackburn calls Jackson’s refusal to answer the question ‘telling’!
If this alphabetical BLM chunk of left wing proto~plasma becomes a Supreme, and she is unable to say, “What is a woman!”:
So, if she lies about this simple question or isn’t smart enough to tell us what a woman is.
She will be totally worthless as a Supreme or as an honorable human being!
—-——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Case CLOSED: Attorney Harmeet K Dhillon looks at KBJ’s refusal to define a woman from a LEGAL perspective in d*mning thread
Twitchy.com ^ | 3/23/2022 | Sam J.
Posted on 3/23/2022, 10:22:20 AM by NetAddicted
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4049081/posts
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Simple answer is any human being with XX pair chromosomes is a woman and those with XY chromosome pairs is a male. Intent or desire to work around that reality is a mental state of gender psychosis. If that’s one’s adult choice, have at it. I want my Zebra to have polka-dots.
8 posted on 3/23/2022, 10:31:17 AM by blackdog (Today’s “disinformation” most often turns out to be tomorrow’s facts. )
—-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
https://media.patriots.win/post/SYuLZS8xE6dR.png
If you can get people to deny the absolute truth of male vs female, then you can get them to accept whatever the government defines as truth. 1984 has arrived and Winston is hard at work at ministry of truth.
28 posted on 3/23/2022, 11:37:14 AM by redangus
—-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Democrats Nominate a Soft on Crime Person for the Supreme Court:
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnrlottjr/2022/03/23/democrats-nominate-a-soft-on-crime-person-for-the-supreme-court-n2604922
If a criminal figures out a more effective way to break into people’s homes to steal more, should he receive a lighter sentence per dollar of what he steals? Biden’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, certainly thinks so.
The legal system doesn’t normally work that way. If a rapist rapes two women, he gets two sentences, one for each crime. Each crime a criminal gets convicted for gets a separate penalty. That has traditionally been true for child pornography, where more pictures of children mean crimes have been committed.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Jackson discussed concerns raised primarily by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) that she was lenient on people who had child pornography. Hawley pointed out that as a judge, there were seven cases where she gave sentences below what was recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines. As a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, she also pushed to lower the penalties for child pornography.
John R. Lott, Jr.
John Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “The War on Guns.”
I would ask if she is a woman and how does she know
There was a post the other day detailing all the Court Decisions she made while Using the Term “Woman” in her decision, Shouldn’t every last one be Overturned and sent back to the Courts for a Re-Hearing???
She can, she just is not telling us what she is going to do.
She can’t, but thy doesn’t matter. She is black and fills all.the checkmarks of liberalism, so,the uniparty,is fine with filling a quota just for just for sake of appearing al. Inclusive. Credentials and abilities be damned.
Easy. In any dispute, the person with the biggest boobs wins.
I refuse to waste any precious energy getting invested in this charade. She’s as good as confirmed.
Let’s just pray for justice Thomas’ recovery.
Ouch
A Trump nominee giving similar answers would’ve been forced to withdraw by now, with Republicans leading the charge.
Just think - if confirmed, kbj will shatter the glass ceiling once and for all!
” . . . [t]he point of voiding vague laws is that the vagueness means they will be interpreted based on the whims of the state . . .”
_________
Judge Jackson’s refusal to answer the question asked by Sen. Blackburn is telling as to the Judge’s overall judicial philosophy. The Judge made it clear by her refusal that she views the Constitution as a living and breathing document that has no fixed meaning but changes with the times. If that is her philosophy, then once on the Court she will join the other liberal justices, as well as some of the so-called conservatives, in continuing to dismantle the settled interpretations of the Constitution to fit the times and the whims of the political class.
Refusing to define something so fundamental as what is a woman should be immediate disqualification for such an crucial position.
Technically, she should base it on not on the evidence and testimony presented to her and the court.
I assume it would depend on what the case was. What other Supreme Court cases have there been where the court was required to define gender?
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.
