|
Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1314]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 8985
Joined: 1/25/11
|
Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 24, 2022, 12:07 PM
|
|
and even refused to try?! She has no right to be a member of the SCOTUS, a question even a 5 year old could answer! The ultimate in stupidity or liberal deflection! Adios.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 24, 2022, 12:31 PM
|
|
She can define it, she just won’t. Pathetic excuse for a candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
brilliant analysis as usual***
Mar 24, 2022, 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: brilliant analysis as usual***
Mar 24, 2022, 12:41 PM
|
|
Honestly what was inaccurate about what he said?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83006]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80122
Joined: 11/29/99
|
This:
Mar 24, 2022, 1:07 PM
|
|
"She has no right to be a member of the SCOTUS"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: This:
Mar 24, 2022, 1:35 PM
|
|
Ok I see that. She does have a right. She’s just not qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 2:24 PM
|
|
a SCJ is because when asked the question "what is a woman?", she didn't respond with "a person born with a vagina." Is that what disqualifies her, or is there more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 2:36 PM
|
|
She was asked 2 questions that I know of where she couldn’t (wouldn’t) answer.
1) Define woman
2) When does life begin?
I can answer both and I’m not a candidate for the court. Some people would not like my answers but I would have the balls to answer. If she’s going to be ruling on cases don’t we deserve to hear her answer the questions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 2:54 PM
|
|
It actually does’t actually matter what you or she believe on those specific issues. What actually matters is that you are able to set aside your personal /religious views on them and rule on constitutionally related issues. She answered that she has her own personal/religious views that she sets aside when ruling on such matters…that’s what you hope to find in a good justice IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 2:57 PM
|
|
If she can’t define “woman” she will not be able to set aside her personal views. Not buying it from her. She will be an activist on the court. It’s absurd to not answer that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73680
Joined: 9/10/03
|
is this like Trump only selecting "Pro-Life justices"?
Mar 24, 2022, 2:59 PM
|
|
because that definitely does not sound like a justice putting their personal and religious beliefs if it is a qualifier for their sitting on the bench.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 3:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be ] |
|
She could have answered it…but she knew it was just a scripted gotcha moment and Blackburn just trying to score points with her voters. She could have answered based on the science of sex versus gender, but let’s be honest, Marsha Blackburn asking that question is like a third grader asking a physicist why the sky is blue. Any sort of answer/explanation that would actually answer the question would either be above her ability to comprehend or (more likely) not support her willfully/expediently ignorant worldview. If I were you, I’d be less concerned with whether KBJ is qualified to sit on the SC (she is) than whether a person like Marsha Blackburn should be in the US Senate (she shouldn’t).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 3:40 PM
|
|
Interesting comparison with the third grader and physicist. I seem to remember Jackson being the one stumbling around and claiming she’s not a biologist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be
Mar 24, 2022, 3:57 PM
|
|
So you don’t find it refreshing that she deferred to those more qualified than simply using her own anecdotal, but also potentially very incorrect, definition based on her own observations/assumptions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
You don't have to have any actual knowledge or expertise on
Mar 24, 2022, 3:59 PM
|
|
something to offer rock-solid, totally correct opinions on it. Look at Covid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Sure, and most rational people understand that there's a
Mar 24, 2022, 3:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: So, just to clarify, the reason she is not qualified to be ] |
|
tremendous amount of nuance in both of those questions. You're looking for a simple, one-sentence answers that fit your worldview, without which you would determine that she is unfit to be a SCJ. Whatever her answer was, it was likely related to how you approach the question, whether from a legal construct, relative capabilities (man vs. woman), viability (fetus), and a long list of other factors that, unfortunately for your brain, exist around these subjects.
Just for my own entertainment...when does life begin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Sure, and most rational people understand that there's a
Mar 24, 2022, 3:17 PM
|
|
Life begins at conception. See how easy that is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3512]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4243
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Sure, and most rational people understand that there's a
Mar 24, 2022, 3:37 PM
|
|
It takes even more balls (and humility) to just say you don’t know…which you don’t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
You're correct, it is remarkably easy to offer your opinion
Mar 24, 2022, 3:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Sure, and most rational people understand that there's a ] |
|
on this subject. The pesky problem you'll face though with your simplified lens is that science runs a little deeper. Define conception, since we're on the subject. Sperm penetrates egg? Nowhere close to viable yet, and completely incapable of survival without implanting itself within the uterine wall. So maybe THAT is when life begins? Mind, we're still talking about a clump of cells that you can count on your fingers and toes (that the clump of cells certainly doesn't have, along with anything resembling a heartbeat or even a heart). So, completely non-viable as a form of "life" without a host, but in your cut-and-dried, black-and-white, completely-free-of-nuance opinion, "that's officially a life and if this nominee doesn't answer that way, she's unqualified."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: You're correct, it is remarkably easy to offer your opinion
Mar 24, 2022, 3:50 PM
|
|
Let me break it down for you. You asked when does life begin? Name one person walking the earth today who skipped the initial conception beginning? Did some of us miraculously not begin that way? Maybe I slept through middle school biology class but it seems to me that’s where living , breathing humans began?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Nobody who attains adulthood got to skip conception,
Mar 24, 2022, 3:57 PM
|
|
so not sure where you're coming up with that weird tangent. The world has seen probably 10 BILLION pregnancies that weren't carried to term (birth, in case you need a black and white definition), for a myriad of reasons, of which one way, WAY down the list is abortion. Many, even most of those 10 billion "lost lives" occurred in women that didn't even know it. How tragic, right? I assume you start every day with a prayer for those countless, totally valuable and important lost lives that nobody knew about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Nobody who attains adulthood got to skip conception,
Mar 24, 2022, 4:03 PM
|
|
Weird tangent?? Are you serious? When did every existing life begin? What was the starting point? I’m not talking about independent viability outside the uterus. I was asked when does life begin. If there’s a starting point to life other than “hello egg my name is sperm” then I’m ready to hear it. Then I’m going to call my 8th grade biology teacher and tell her she was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Nope, totally disagree. See that sperm, wiggling around
Mar 24, 2022, 4:10 PM
|
|
all on its own? That's life, brother. Show me ANY inorganic object that moves on its own without outside force acting upon it. You can't change facts with your incorrect opinion.
You know, since we're drawing arbitrary lines and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Nope, totally disagree. See that sperm, wiggling around
Mar 24, 2022, 4:14 PM
|
|
Ok fine, so it’s when egg and spent do their thing. In other words, conception. We’re right back to where we started. Conception is the starting point ( beginning) of life. I just don’t see how that’s debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63759
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I just told you that a sperm is a living entity.
Mar 24, 2022, 4:32 PM
|
|
Explain why it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: I just told you that a sperm is a living entity.
Mar 24, 2022, 5:51 PM
|
|
What is your point? The beginning or starting point of a human life is at conception. I don’t understand why you’re not understanding me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12566]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6301
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 24, 2022, 2:24 PM
|
|
She is obviously very bright, has excellent academic credentials, by all accounts is on a personal level engaging and even charming. She is black and apparently a woman although I apologize for assuming that.
Elections have consequences. If the person nominated has excellent academic credentials and has no serious proven moral failings, that person should be approved by the Senate. That should be the standard for both parties.
She will be on the Court. However, I am concerned that when she was sentencing child pron offenders, she gave some very lenient sentences, even often well below the recommended minimums.
That does not bode well going forward regarding other issues. I can not think of a more reprehensible group of individuals. Even hard core prisoners do not tolerate those who abuse kids.
How any judge could sentence someone possessing hundreds of child pron images to a mere 3 months is beyond my understanding.
The hearings are mostly just theatrics. Graham looked like a child storming out of the hearing although I am glad that he did use part of his time to point out the difference in how Barrett was treated as opposed to this nominee.
Vote and let's move on. I don't agree with her on probably much, but she's obviously qualified and if there were any serious moral issues with her, we would all know it by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7084]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9658
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 24, 2022, 9:11 PM
|
|
It's hard to agree that KBJ gets a pass to be on SCOTUS if she refuses to answer simple questions because they have political implications (re: the "can you define a woman" question). The tortured explanations to justify KBJ's answers and to discredit KBJ's questioners by the MSM (WAPO, USA Today [FWTW], etc.) and wanna-be MSM (The Tennessean) reveal a lot about their private sentiments about KBJ's 'truthfulness.'
Entrepreneur Magazine had an article (Oct. 2018) ... "10 Telltale Phrases that Indicate Someone Isn't Telling The Truth" Has KBJ done any of these? (Hint: We now know why Joe feels like he has so much in common with KBJ.) KBJ did the Entrepreneur 'sandwich' ... "Telltale Phrase" #1 and "Telltale Phrase #10 to reveal herself. KBJ sure has some skills ... but not the skills you want for a judge.
1. Stalling tactics: “Did I do it? Of course not!” Entrepreneur's example: "Liars often repeat a question nearly verbatim as a stalling tactic in order to give themselves more time to formulate an answer."
KBJ example #1: Marsha Blackburn / KBJ exchange (quoted from WAPO):
KBJ lie #1: Blackburn said. “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson replied, clearly bemused. “No. I can't.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10. "Embellishing insignificant details while avoiding important ones." Entrepreneur's example:
"Liars are eager to convince you they are telling the truth and will try to add details to make their story more believable -- which actually makes their story less believable."
KBJ example #2: Continued exchange between Marsha Blackburn / KBJ exchange (again from WAPO):
KBJ lie #2: “You can’t (define a woman)?” Blackburn replied.
“Not in this context,” Jackson said. “I’m not a biologist.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are better black woman candidates for SCOTUS. It's time to move on from KBJ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 25, 2022, 9:54 AM
|
|
Wow, that's what you derived from the hearings? Here is what I derived, I agree with Senator Sasse on the 'Jackassery' of the questions(both on the right now and formerly left on other nominees):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZQN09vykxc
The Blackburn question was 'Jackassery' (esp. in context with her overall questions) and did not deserve a response just like Cotton's questions on the percentages of rapers/murderers that end up getting caught and convicted, Lady G's questions on GITMO and Cruz's questions on CRT. These have nothing to do with her qualifications. She's as qualified as any currently on the SC and Cata may be right that these hearings are ridiculous and are not needed. Just vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7084]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9658
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 25, 2022, 10:23 AM
|
|
Hearings help to expose attributes such as mental dexterity, poise, and truthfulness.
KBJ has shown mental dexterity (she's smart) and poise (doesn't wilt when asked difficult questions).
Unfortunately, the hearings have exposed KBJ as a liar and a phony.
America can do better than to put KBJ on SCOTUS. Quite frankly, it is easy to come up with far better candidates than KBJ. Biden needs to swallow his pride and do what's good for America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Seriously, a double Harvard grad can't define a woman,
Mar 25, 2022, 10:38 AM
|
|
Then you disagree with many many legal scholars, the Fraternal Order of Police, 58% of the American people(2nd only to Roberts at 59%), 33% of Pubs and many many others, but I guess that is ok and par for the course now. Totally expect that you would say she was "exposed as a liar and a phony", it's what y'all "patriots" do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|
|
50
