Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I don't think she's unable to define it; she just recognized the attempt to rile up opposition from her own camp.

Right, it was an obvious "trap" question that she pretty much had to fall into.

Answer sincerely and factually, and she risks being called a bigot by her own side.

Fail to answer, and reveal yourself as a hopeless partisan who is scared to ever waiver from retarded ishlib positions.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Everyone knows what's going on with this nomination. Ishlibs are putting someone on the SC that they know will never waiver from doing what she's told. This isn't a case where she's expected to thoughtfully consider any decisions she makes. Like Sotomayor, she's never going to take anything but the extreme liberal position on any decision.

Meanwhile, Repubs end up nominating the Kavanaughs and ACBs of the world that will routinely side with liberals. This is why Republicans the right always loses and we drift further toward our inevitable path left.

Here we go - as if on que, all the libs are defending a stance where a Supreme Court nominee declines to define who a woman is during confirmation hearings.

14 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Meanwhile, Repubs end up nominating the Kavanaughs and ACBs of the world that will routinely side with liberals. 

 

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Yep, dude, look it up. I've no time to educate a teacher on the subject. 

8 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

It's almost as if being asked questions about basic definitions like the word "woman" elicits a different response than one accusing you of being a gang rapist.  

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yep, dude, look it up. I've no time to educate a teacher on the subject. 

I recall their siding with liberals in some of the ridiculous Trump cases, which really shouldn't be a partisan issue anyway. I don't recall their doing so on much else.

how is asking a SC nominee to define a biological sex relevant to their ability to apply the law? 

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

how is asking a SC nominee to define a biological sex relevant to their ability to apply the law? 

It’s not but not being able to define a 1st grade level word is a problem. 

11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I recall their siding with liberals in some of the ridiculous Trump cases, which really shouldn't be a partisan issue anyway. I don't recall their doing so on much else.

For some reason, Republicans have deluded themselves into believing that Conservative judges should've gone along with their attempts to tear up the constitution and install a dictator.  Another example of the Republicans confusing the drumbeat of their media with the truth.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

how is asking a SC nominee to define a biological sex relevant to their ability to apply the law? 

It's an incredibly easy way to tell if she's a retarded woke ishlib moron. She failed (or passed) the test depending on your preference.

35 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Right, it was an obvious "trap" question that she pretty much had to fall into.

Answer sincerely and factually, and she risks being called a bigot by her own side.

Fail to answer, and reveal yourself as a hopeless partisan who is scared to ever waiver from retarded ishlib positions.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Everyone knows what's going on with this nomination. Ishlibs are putting someone on the SC that they know will never waiver from doing what she's told. This isn't a case where she's expected to thoughtfully consider any decisions she makes. Like Sotomayor, she's never going to take anything but the extreme liberal position on any decision.

Meanwhile, Repubs end up nominating the Kavanaughs and ACBs of the world that will routinely side with liberals. This is why Republicans the right always loses and we drift further toward our inevitable path left.

Yeah, right wing judges aren't partisan at all.  

14 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I recall their siding with liberals in some of the ridiculous Trump cases, which really shouldn't be a partisan issue anyway. I don't recall their doing so on much else.

There's been more than "ridiculous Trump cases" but, yes, they've proven they will side with the liberal side of the SC on multiple occasions. Meanwhile, everyone knows there will never be an issue in which this chick who can't define the word woman will break from the liberal side and vote with the conservative side. 

2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Yeah, right wing judges aren't partisan at all.  

The newer ones have sided with the liberals in many cases already. This is why we lose.  

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

There's been more than "ridiculous Trump cases" but, yes, they've proven they will side with the liberal side of the SC on multiple occasions. Meanwhile, everyone knows there will never be an issue in which this chick who can't define the word woman will break from the liberal side and vote with the conservative side. 

The newer ones have sided with the liberals in many cases already. This is why we lose.  

Someone's still salty that they didn't Stop the Steal. 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Someone's still salty that they didn't Stop the Steal. 

Again, there's been more than "ridiculous Trump cases" but great post anyway I guess.  

Can you imagine the confusion and bewilderment this lady must have experienced when people were congratulating her for being the first black woman nominee to the SC? 

38 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

how is asking a SC nominee to define a biological sex relevant to their ability to apply the law? 

 

31 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It’s not but not being able to define a 1st grade level word is a problem. 

Actually, thinking a bit more about it, their  is a ton of law based on or including gender/sex rights. 
 

Note: I’m not saying this is a big issue. She seems highly qualified. Further, I bet she has no trouble whatsoever defining the term. She just knows this is such a hot potato that it isn’t something she should get into. 

Just now, Kz! said:

Again, there's been more than "ridiculous Trump cases" but great post anyway I guess.  

It's marginal.  Liberal judges vote together 80% of the time.  Conservative judges vote together 70% of the time (Roberts excluded, he's more of an outlier).

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891185410/in-supreme-court-term-liberals-stuck-together-while-conservatives-appeared-fract

Again, you're just mad because the conservatives voted against turning the US into a Russian-style sheet-hole.    But ya'll really should've seen it coming.

19 minutes ago, Kz! said:

There's been more than "ridiculous Trump cases" but, yes, they've proven they will side with the liberal side of the SC on multiple occasions. Meanwhile, everyone knows there will never be an issue in which this chick who can't define the word woman will break from the liberal side and vote with the conservative side. 

The newer ones have sided with the liberals in many cases already. This is why we lose.  

And who nominated those traitorous scum to the court? Oh...right.

So basically you're super mad because the Trump GOP sucks at picking nominees. 

22 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And who nominated those traitorous scum to the court? Oh...right.

So basically you're super mad because the Trump GOP sucks at picking nominees. 

Yes, personnel decisions were one of Trump's main weakness. He surrounded himself with disgusting swamp GOPers that you seem to like (if you haven't gone full retarded ishlib which is debatable). That said, obviously it's a good thing that Gorsuch, ACB, and Kavanaugh are at least not three Sotomayors/Kentajis so full disaster is averted/delayed for now. 

10 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yes, personnel decisions were one of Trump's main weakness. He surrounded himself with disgusting swamp GOPers that you seem to like (if you haven't gone full retarded ishlib which is debatable). That said, obviously it's a good thing that Gorsuch, ACB, and Kavanaugh are at least not three Sotomayors/Kentajis so full disaster is averted/delayed for now. 

LOL - what? Who around Trump did I "like"? 

Bolton -- never been a fan of the guy's non-stop desire to fight Iran

Barr -- really didn't know much about him pre-Trump, but not a fan at all

Kelly -- I have no real opinion on him either way

Pence -- never been a fan of the religious right

Priebus -- I've constantly blamed him for the 2016 primary clown show

I think the only hires he made that I sort of liked were Haley and Tillerson.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Here we go - as if on que, all the libs are defending a stance where a Supreme Court nominee declines to define who a woman is during confirmation hearings.

Uh huh, and how does the Constitution define a woman?

It defines a black men as 3/5ths of a person. I'm sure Trumplicans would agree.

 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

Yeah, right wing judges aren't partisan at all.  

If Liberals are for it, he's against it. His voting record bears that out. More radical then Scalia. Especially for someone who doesn't utter a word in Court. 

1 minute ago, jsdarkstar said:

Uh huh, and how does the Constitution define a woman?

It defines a black men as 3/5ths of a person. I'm sure Trumplicans would agree.

 

To be clear, it doesn't do this. It defined those who are not "free" (i.e., slaves) as 3/5 of a person when counting population to determine representation. It says nothing about race, and free black men and women were counted as whole persons in the north. 

Quote

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].

Details matter.

25 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yes, personnel decisions were one of Trump's main weakness. 

FYP