Re: The Supreme Court

by **kingstonlake** 2022-03-24, 07:38

Robert J Sakimano wrote:So have the GOP senators burned a cross in the hearing room yet?

No but I saw where Tucker Carlson referenced rappers when talking about her.

by **NigelUno** 2022-03-24, 08:19

RQA wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

She seemed to handle all sorts of topics, from Ted Cruz's racist babies to Tom Cotton's rapists. I'm sure she could opine on your favorite SCOTUS decision.

But she couldn't. Said she couldn't remember the basis for it, or something like that. But since she is a leftist democrat that doesn't bother you.

Would be like letting a surgeon operate on you after she admitted she couldn't remember where the appendix is.

"...or something like that."

You were so busy coming up with a ridiculous analogy that your can't remember what she said?

by RQA 2022-03-24, 09:11

Pervis Muldoon wrote:My favorite headline from the hearing: "Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden's Supreme Court pick, refuses to define the word 'woman'." Fox News, of course.

Was Fox News wrong? Did she actually define the word 'woman'? If so, she will be the first leftist to do so.

KBJ:
“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,”

“Because I am a woman, because I am a black woman, all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them.”

“Having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters.”

Question for KBJ: What is a woman?

KBJ: I don't know

by RQA 2022-03-24, 09:13

NigelUno wrote:
a ridiculous analogy

My analogy is spot on.

Can you imagine a law school graduate, let alone a Supreme Court nominee, that doesn't know the basis of the Dred Scott decision?

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:09

RQA wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:My favorite headline from the hearing: "Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden's Supreme Court pick, refuses to define the word 'woman'." Fox News, of course.

Was Fox News wrong? Did she actually define the word 'woman'? If so, she will be the first leftist to do so.

KBJ:
“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,”

“Because I am a woman, because I am a black woman, all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them.”

“Having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters.”

Question for KBJ: What is a woman?

KBJ: I don't know

Not what she said, and of course the grandstanding Senator cut her off before she completed her answer, because they wanted people like you to lie for them.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:13

Trapper Gus wrote:

Not what she said

Well then, please tell us what she said.

The Supreme Court - Page 18 276803595

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:13

RQA wrote:
NigelUno wrote:
a ridiculous analogy

My analogy is spot on.

Can you imagine a law school graduate, let alone a Supreme Court nominee, that doesn't know the basis of the Dred Scott decision?

Well, first Dred Scott is a dead section of case law, as it no longer applies, second, therefore there is no reason that it would be taught in law school, and finally, given the rush to eliminate it from general public-school studies by the Conservatives and Republicans, it is surprising that you all would be highlighting what raciest you all are.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:14

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Not what she said

Well then, please tell us what she said.

Since she wasn't allowed to finish what she was saying I can't.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:20

RQA: KBJ said she can't define what a woman is

TG: That's not what she said

RQA: Then tell us what she said

TG: I can't

There isn't a laughing emoji adequate enough to post in response to this.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 10:22

How do you define a woman rqa

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:25

Trapper Gus wrote:
Well, first Dred Scott is a dead section of case law, as it no longer applies, second, therefore there is no reason that it would be taught in law school, and finally, given the rush to eliminate it from general public-school studies by the Conservatives and Republicans, it is surprising that you all would be highlighting what raciest you all are.

No reason to teach it in law school? The Supreme Court - Page 18 2803167989

One of the most significant and well-known cases in the history of our country and you defend her not knowing enough to opine about it?

You have to be a unique combination of dishonest, ignorant and pathologic to be so stupid day after day after day.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:28

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:How do you define a woman rqa

The Cambridge Dictionary says: "an adult female human being"

I'll go with that.

You?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 10:29

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:How do you define a woman rqa

The Cambridge Dictionary says: "an adult female human being"

I'll go with that.

You?

How do you define female rqa?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 10:30

Thanks for looking it up in the dictionary though. That’s a normal thing to need to do if it’s a black and white question.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:31

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:
Well, first Dred Scott is a dead section of case law, as it no longer applies, second, therefore there is no reason that it would be taught in law school, and finally, given the rush to eliminate it from general public-school studies by the Conservatives and Republicans, it is surprising that you all would be highlighting what raciest you all are.

No reason to teach it in law school?

One of the most significant and well-known cases in the history of our country and you defend her not knowing enough to opine about it?

You have to be a unique combination of dishonest, ignorant and pathologic to be so stupid day after day after day.

You don't even know what it was a ruling on.

If you did you wouldn't have posted what you just posted.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:33

TG - Since she wasn't allowed to finish what she was saying I can't.

RQA - TG says "I can't"

Just more cherry picking and dodging to support his racist views and yes, anyone who believes that Dred Scott has relevance in the law today is totally a racist.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:39

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

How do you define female rqa?

Two X chromosomes. Normally having a vagina, uterus, ovaries which leads to a body configuration allowing for the development and delivery of offspring.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 10:40

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

How do you define female rqa?

Two X chromosomes. Normally having a vagina, uterus, ovaries which leads to a body configuration allowing for the development and delivery of offspring.

Gender & DNA, another area where you are ignorant.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 10:42

Trapper Gus wrote: anyone who believes that Dred Scott has relevance in the law today is totally a racist.

It just never stops!

by **kingstonlake** 2022-03-24, 10:48

I can define a racist troll.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 10:49

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

How do you define female rqa?

Two X chromosomes. Normally having a vagina, uterus, ovaries which leads to a body configuration allowing for the development and delivery of offspring.

Thank you for playing along with what you had to have known is a trap.

These people have two X chromosomes. Are they women? They don’t have a vagina, but they do have two X chromosomes.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/

Okay so you say no, you only care about genitals. These people have an XY chromosome, but they have female genitalia. Are they women?

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

There are more, of course, because there are all sorts of defects out there. Anyway, the point is that there are always odd exceptions to however you want to define this. So when asked point blank how to define what a woman is perhaps it’s better for a judge to not offer blank generalizations like you just did as they may have to rule in the future on cases that operate within that grey area.

Of course this is not the world of cable news. In the cable news world everything is black and white and everyone should just be able to say that. But maybe that’s not the real world and is instead just tv.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 11:07

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote: anyone who believes that Dred Scott has relevance in the law today is totally a racist.

It just never stops!

Not when you show your racist beliefs in saying that a case which has no relevance in the law is a Major Case that all lawyers should be taught, when in fact it is the most racist ruling that could be made, bar none.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 11:36

WASHINGTON (AP) — Legal experts praised Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in her final day of Senate hearings on Thursday, with a top lawyers’ group saying its review found she has a “sterling” reputation, “exceptional” competence and is well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 11:44

Speaking of current Supreme Court Justices who seem to be less than qualified ...

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone justice to dissent, writing that Ramirez has engaged in repeated litigation tactics to delay his execution and that his current lawsuit “is but the latest iteration in an 18-year pattern of evasion.”

AP Report

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-03-24, 11:48

I'm not sure we can trust RQA's definition of "woman" when his idea of a man is Lindsey Graham.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-03-24, 12:26

I am shocked.. SHOCKED.. to find out that republicans don't like a brown female. The Supreme Court - Page 18 1966794946

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-03-24, 12:31

from February 25th:

Bobby Sak wrote:Biden to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson.

racist, bigoted misogynistic republicans: the line to start whining about women, black women and how unqualified they are forms over on the left.

from February 25th:

Bobby Sak wrote:the fact that "Brown" is actually her name is absolutely certain to drive republicans insane.

from February 25th (in reference to Lindsey Graham whining about a black woman):

Bobby Sak wrote:so... he doesn't like a strong, smart, independent black woman?

shocking..

from March 3rd:

Bobby Sak wrote:read that members of the mainstream media are demanding to see her LSAT scores..

'cause.. ya know.. there is no way a black woman can be smart enough to get into law school.

these racist miscreants are so predictable.

from March 3rd:

Bobby Sak wrote:yeah, sign me up to watch the mainstream media.. it's so difficult to predict what their anti-America, right wing christian narrative will be.

and from March 21st:

Bobby Sak wrote:confirmation process for Brown Jackson begins today.

I can guarantee you that she won't sob like a spoiled child, whine about how unfairly she's being treated, be accused of sexually assaulting someone or tell everyone how much she loves drinking beer.

thoughts and prayers with the GOP/racists during these difficult times.

by RQA 2022-03-24, 14:21

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
RQA wrote:

Two X chromosomes. Normally having a vagina, uterus, ovaries which leads to a body configuration allowing for the development and delivery of offspring.

Thank you for playing along with what you had to have known is a trap.

These people have two X chromosomes. Are they women? They don’t have a vagina, but they do have two X chromosomes.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/

Okay so you say no, you only care about genitals. These people have an XY chromosome, but they have female genitalia. Are they women?

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

There are more, of course, because there are all sorts of defects out there. Anyway, the point is that there are always odd exceptions to however you want to define this. So when asked point blank how to define what a woman is perhaps it’s better for a judge to not offer blank generalizations like you just did as they may have to rule in the future on cases that operate within that grey area.

Some "trap" The Supreme Court - Page 18 502811600

Of course there are different genetic abnormalities that result in rare permutations of the female/male construct. Hence my use of the word "normally".

You need to learn to read more carefully.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-03-24, 14:28

just saw that the knuckle-scrapin' AG of Alabama, who - in a shock to nobody - is on Capitol Hill to bemoan and besmirch a successful black woman, refused to say that Joe Biden was elected President of the United States. The Supreme Court - Page 18 502811600

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-03-24, 14:35

RQA wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:My favorite headline from the hearing: "Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden's Supreme Court pick, refuses to define the word 'woman'." Fox News, of course.

Was Fox News wrong? Did she actually define the word 'woman'? If so, she will be the first leftist to do so.

KBJ:
“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,”

“Because I am a woman, because I am a black woman, all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them.”

“Having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters.”

Question for KBJ: What is a woman?

KBJ: I don't know

Your mischaracterization of the exchange aside, the point is that this is what your most trusted mainstream media outlet is pushing. They believe that, after several hours of testimony, this is what Fox Fans want to know. Your favorite source has a very low opinion of your intellect.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 14:38

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Thank you for playing along with what you had to have known is a trap.

These people have two X chromosomes. Are they women? They don’t have a vagina, but they do have two X chromosomes.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/

Okay so you say no, you only care about genitals. These people have an XY chromosome, but they have female genitalia. Are they women?

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

There are more, of course, because there are all sorts of defects out there. Anyway, the point is that there are always odd exceptions to however you want to define this. So when asked point blank how to define what a woman is perhaps it’s better for a judge to not offer blank generalizations like you just did as they may have to rule in the future on cases that operate within that grey area.

Some "trap"

Of course there are different genetic abnormalities that result in rare permutations of the female/male construct. Hence my use of the word "normally".

You need to learn to read more carefully.

I saw your use of normally. The problem is, I used words like “judge” and “future” and “cases”

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-03-24, 15:02

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Thank you for playing along with what you had to have known is a trap.

These people have two X chromosomes. Are they women? They don’t have a vagina, but they do have two X chromosomes.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/

Okay so you say no, you only care about genitals. These people have an XY chromosome, but they have female genitalia. Are they women?

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

There are more, of course, because there are all sorts of defects out there. Anyway, the point is that there are always odd exceptions to however you want to define this. So when asked point blank how to define what a woman is perhaps it’s better for a judge to not offer blank generalizations like you just did as they may have to rule in the future on cases that operate within that grey area.

Some "trap"

Of course there are different genetic abnormalities that result in rare permutations of the female/male construct. Hence my use of the word "normally".

You need to learn to read more carefully.

If by the word "normally" you mean it is the statistical sense of the average of a gaussian distribution, then it is a fair point, however even then the sigma away from "normal" is poorly understood at this time.

Furthermore, recent science, which is really the only period of time when science has had detailed tools to examine all the genes, has shown that there are more genes involved than just the "XY" ones.

The Genetics of Gender Identity

If you mean "normally" as in a value judgement of what is acceptable then you are just being a bigot.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 20:06

The story out today about Clarence Thomas is comically corrupt. Literally the kind of shit you’d see in a movie and say “nah”. If he’s not impeached for it (he won’t be) then there is no reason to accept the Supreme Court as a valid institution anymore. They’ve gone beyond any kind of accountability and it’s time to make a farce of it by adding 330 million Supreme Court justices.

by **kingstonlake** 2022-03-24, 20:11

Pulling for the flu in this match up.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-03-24, 20:25

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The story out today about Clarence Thomas is comically corrupt. Literally the kind of shit you’d see in a movie and say “nah”. If he’s not impeached for it (he won’t be) then there is no reason to accept the Supreme Court as a valid institution anymore. They’ve gone beyond any kind of accountability and it’s time to make a farce of it by adding 330 million Supreme Court justices.

yeah it sounds like 'ol Uncle Clarence's wife is a real piece of disgusting anti-American filth.

I'm real shocked by that.

But yeah.. we live in a racist country. Ain't nothing gonna happen to her.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-03-24, 20:27

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The story out today about Clarence Thomas is comically corrupt. Literally the kind of shit you’d see in a movie and say “nah”. If he’s not impeached for it (he won’t be) then there is no reason to accept the Supreme Court as a valid institution anymore. They’ve gone beyond any kind of accountability and it’s time to make a farce of it by adding 330 million Supreme Court justices.
yeah it sounds like 'ol Uncle Clarence's wife is a real piece of disgusting anti-American filth.

I'm real shocked by that.

But yeah.. we live in a racist country. Ain't nothing gonna happen to her.

And Clarence ruled on a case saying that evidence against her should not be released, instead of recusing himself, which is obviously the correct thing to do. But the Supreme Court is completely beyond all checks and balances and needs to be abolished.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2022-03-24, 20:31

Saw that Mitch McConnell - who enjoys posing with Confederate flags - isn't going to vote to confirm a black woman to SCOTUS.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2022-03-24, 21:07

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:
Well, first Dred Scott is a dead section of case law, as it no longer applies, second, therefore there is no reason that it would be taught in law school, and finally, given the rush to eliminate it from general public-school studies by the Conservatives and Republicans, it is surprising that you all would be highlighting what raciest you all are.

No reason to teach it in law school?

One of the most significant and well-known cases in the history of our country and you defend her not knowing enough to opine about it?

You have to be a unique combination of dishonest, ignorant and pathologic to be so stupid day after day after day.

Are you still on about this? How is it significant...today, I mean....or at any time in the last 150 years? It was a decision significant for, oh, about 8 years, if that. It was effectively overturned and rendered completely irrelevant by the 14th Amendment.

The decision has significance in history, not in the adjudication of law 165 years later. And the law that was the basis for the decision is even less relevant than the decision itself, both in an historical sense, and in a 21st Century law sense.

by PennSpartan 2022-03-25, 07:08

RQA wrote:
NigelUno wrote:
a ridiculous analogy

My analogy is spot on.

Can you imagine a law school graduate, let alone a Supreme Court nominee, that doesn't know the basis of the Dred Scott decision?

Were Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch asked about the Dred Scott case? Were they asked to define a woman?

by PennSpartan 2022-03-25, 07:13

Clarence Thomas is a POS

Reports: Jan. 6 committee reviewing texts between Virginia Thomas and Mark Meadows

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/24/jan-6-committee-ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-text-messages/7159937001/

by Sponsored content