They tried to ping faux controversies on her like Christmas ornaments and they failed hard and made a fool of themselves.
shareDesperate to impress their base for when they run for higher office, that is...
shareJust like when democrats lied and cried over that Christine Ford dipship w Justine Cavenaugh. You fuckers had no evidence he did anything wrong. This dumb bitch is being nominated only bc she's black, not on merit..I feel so sorry for you liberals.
shareI LIKE BEER
shareLiking beer is normal, thinking only biologists know what a woman is is NOT normal.
shareKavanaugh crying like a little bitch when the questions got a bit tough was not normal.
shareI don't think that's what happened. Kavanaugh's family was getting death threats from left wingers. That would upset anyone and possibly bring them to tears.
I think that is what happened. I did watch parts of the testimony. He cried like a baby; not someone that can be trusted on any bench.
How do you know that? Where arrests made? If not, then how do you know they were left wingers?
You think wrong. He may have cried but so what? I don't care that much... it certainly has no bearing on whether or not he can be a trusted SCJ.
And it certainly wasn't right wingers or moderates. It was more than likely to be Hillary supporters.
So you're just making up stuff when you claim Hillary supporters were arrested for making threats?
I didn't say they were arrested, but its obvious they weren't righties or moderates.
shareWhy not? pubs will adopt any machinations in order to further their agenda. They can't win fair elections, they can't let a free press cover them, so they do the only thing they can -- claim they are holding a superior position while the rest of us are disgusted with the calumny.
shareAre you saying that Republicans can't be offended by the antics of integrity challenged people like Kavanaugh?
shareYour opinions are useless.
shareBeing nominated for your race and sex and not knowing what a woman is is NOT a faux controversy. Imagine if the show was on other foot.
shareOverqualified and gotcha question. Next.
shareI don't understand you.
President Biden created and stated the standard qualifications, which will be based on "sex" and "race". The problem is, how can the People know if a judge is qualified based on judicial merit when there is a sexist and racist qualifier?
Biden doing this makes it even tougher for Senate members to vet a nominee; thus the real "gotcha" is when Senators try to vet a person, whose base qualifications are limited to sex and race but are accused of racism and sexism by Leftists; where as better proposed justices (regardless of sex and race) is better suited.
I for one think, if this was Biden's course to nominate a justice based on "sex" and "race"; just do it, don't STATE it; otherwise, it tants the nominee pool and vetting process. Imo.
Let me put it this way: JB made her skip the line for the job interview but her curriculum got her the job.
But I know you Republicans will never accept she's good enough. This is why it is said black people have to overachieve.
Let us be clear, I'm NOT a Republican, and you shouldn't deem someone so because they differ from your POV.
No one brought up race, or the black population, nor sex except for Joe Biden, the media, and leftist blogger activists.
The truth is, she is a democrat nominee; Democrats will use kitty gloves, while the opposition will try to vet said nominee as best as possible; and the Democrat leadership, prominent media networkS, and leftist activist bloggers will claim racism and sexism when trying to vet said nominee;
However, if KB Jackson was a Republican nominee; Republicans would use kitty gloves, while the opposition will try to destroy said nominee's life, their family as best as possible; and the Republican leadership, Fox News, and right-wing activist bloggers will deemed as racist, sexist, transphobes, homophones, white nationalist if they support her; and propagate the idea that KB Jackson is all of the above [i.g., racist, sexist, transphobes, and homophobes] and the "black face of white supremacy" by the Democrat leadership, prominent media networkS, and leftist activist bloggers.
Even if she is qualified, skipping in line is just. plain. wrong.
shareI can't really begin to understand why she just can't answer the question about the definition of a woman. Is it really that shocking to define this word now days in America. If it is, this nation is in real trouble.
It's not like she's going to lose democrat votes if she defines it. They're voting for her no matter what. By not defining it, she just exposes herself as an activist.
Please define what a woman is.
sharelol... I cannot, I am not a biologist.
But seriously, a full grown female is a woman.
Which of course, this would mean you have to define 'female' to really get to the nitty-gritty of what a woman is. For the most part, a female is any mammal that can reproduce, have menstrual cycles, produce estrogen, etc...
I assume you're now going to come back and say, but...but... but... this and that do these things too. lol...
At which point, I would then say, yeah but not for any real purpose, there are reasons why the female body is capable of doing things that a male body cannot. And this is what makes them women.
Now, this is not to say that there aren't any exceptions to these natural laws, some people are born different ways but it's really not that hard to define 'female'. Hell, a 10 year old could do it.
What she said was '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.'
How is that ignored over "I'm not a biologist"?
I am a woman, but I want to know how you define what I am and why it's so important to everyone.
You say a full grown female is a woman, but what makes someone female? There are women, and I don't mean trans women who don't reproduce, have periods, or natural estrogen, or enough estrogen. There are women who have turner syndrome. There are a lot of intersex conditions that are quite common, so please, if it's not hard from a legal perspective to define a woman, do it.
We are talking of legal definitions here that would be all encompassing that the Supreme Court could use. I want a court to look at all angles and debate something, and to come to something that would include all women.
Same thing with, what defines a male? Is it having a penis? Testes?
It's fine for you and I to pop off what we think men and women are, but for someone who is going to be on the highest court of the US, I think it's really dumb for people to be up in arms over her giving the answer she did.
I am not up in arms, I just think she could have answered it. that's all...
I understand there are some exceptions to what we define as female, and that is why we have judges to determine such things. But let's say in the future, certain trans issues are presented to the supreme court and it's being argued that there is no such thing as "woman" or "man"" and therefore, trans people can enter any space a "female or male" can, which would include locker rooms, bathrooms, bedrooms, sports competitions, etc..etc..
Hell, let's just say for a moment, that men and women don't really exist, and we all just enter any space we want....
How do you judge this? Do you go back and say, well, "I'm not a biologist so I can't really say one way or another". Or do you have the guts to define the differences between male and female?
So, yes, you are right, this is the highest court in the land we're talking about. These things do matter, but let's not for a moment think these gender issues are going to subside and vanish into thin air some time soon. These things are going to keep getting more and more involved in our daily lives.
And not because some people choose poor judges to define these things but rather because, there are extreme people on the left that want this to be a key issue. I'm not so much worried about KBJ, she seems like a capable judge but shouldn't she be able to make some assertions on what she thinks is a male and female? Again, the odds of this costing her the job is highly unlikely. So, let's hear it, do women and men really exist?
How do you judge this? Do you go back and say, well, "I'm not a biologist so I can't really say one way or another". Or do you have the guts to define the differences between male and female?
Biden said he nominated her for her race and gender (even though libtards can’t even define gender), geez I wish they’d just go back to nominating based on qualifications
shareThe only person who is making themselves a fool is a woman who can't define what a woman is.
share