Re: The Supreme Court

by **Motown Spartan** 25/03/22, 07:39 am

PennSpartan wrote:Clarence Thomas is a POS

Water is wet.

by RQA 25/03/22, 08:01 am

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
RQA wrote:

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”

If she couldn't define a woman because she might one day be a judge on a future case, she could have just said that.

We all know that she wouldn't define the term woman for fear of offending her progressive handlers.

by RQA 25/03/22, 08:05 am

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

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

This place is overrun with liberals and leftists. Is there even one of you that agrees with Trapper that the Dred Scott case is not relevant and should not be taught?

by PennSpartan 25/03/22, 08:46 am

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

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

If she couldn't define a woman because she might one day be a judge on a future case, she could have just said that.

We all know that she wouldn't define the term woman for fear of offending her progressive handlers.

She didn’t answer that question or Dred Scott question because they were clearly sexist and racist bait questions. She’s smart enough not to go down that path.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 25/03/22, 08:47 am

PennSpartan wrote:Clarence Thomas is a POS

Decent Americans knew that during his confirmation hearing 30+ years ago.

by **NigelUno** 25/03/22, 08:49 am

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:Clarence Thomas is a POS

Decent Americans knew that during his confirmation hearing 30+ years ago.

His wife sounds nice.

by PennSpartan 25/03/22, 08:52 am

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:Clarence Thomas is a POS

Decent Americans knew that during his confirmation hearing 30+ years ago.

He was simply following the Republican requirement of being a sexual predator.

by **Trapper Gus** 25/03/22, 09:30 am

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

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

This place is overrun with liberals and leftists. Is there even one of you that agrees with Trapper that the Dred Scott case is not relevant and should not be taught?

To be clear, since RQA is once again misrepresenting my position, what a surprise, the Dred Scott Case law was thrown out with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, therefore there is no reason to teach it in law school. It should be taught as an example of systematic racism (CRT) and white privilege in high school history classes; however I suspect that RQA would not agree.

by **Motown Spartan** 25/03/22, 09:31 am

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

This place is overrun with liberals and leftists. Is there even one of you that agrees with Trapper that the Dred Scott case is not relevant and should not be taught?

To be clear, since RQA is once again misrepresenting my position, what a surprise, the Dred Scott Case law was thrown out with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, therefore there is no reason to trach it in law school. It should be taught as an example of systematic racism (CRT) and white privilege in high school history classes; however I suspect that RQA would not agree.

You can't expect critical thought.

by **Trapper Gus** 25/03/22, 09:35 am

PennSpartan wrote: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/

I'm thinking there was a case after the election where Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion saying that the state legislatures could throw out the vote of the people and cast the electoral votes for whomever they wanted. I could be wrong about this but I do think I remember it.

by **kingstonlake** 25/03/22, 09:46 am

You don't define the term "woman" without a legal argument in front of you as to what someone is claiming it is. Travis already made this point. JFC some people are stupid.

by **GRR Spartan** 25/03/22, 10:03 am

Justice Thomas’ spouse was in The White House participating in meetings attempting to disregard the results of a Presidential election and bypass Congress certifying said election so the loser could get another term.

If it was about election integrity where the hell was she and the rest of the handwringers in 2016 where Trump, the candidate won key states by less than 1%.

Justice Thomas wife is a traitor to the country and Constitution.

by Pervis Muldoon 25/03/22, 12:37 pm

Just checking in. Is RQA still shocked and appalled that not everyone knows and loves the Dred Scott decision as much as he does?

by **MiamiSpartan** 25/03/22, 12:50 pm

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

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

This place is overrun with liberals and leftists. Is there even one of you that agrees with Trapper that the Dred Scott case is not relevant and should not be taught?

I'm not a liberal or a leftist, and I've twice pointed out to you that the Dred Scott decision has been irrelevant to adjudicating law for more than 150 years.

If you can explain how that case is relevant when it was overturned by multiple amendments, I'd be interested in your rationale.

by RQA 26/03/22, 09:06 am

kingstonlake wrote:You don't define the term "woman" without a legal argument in front of you

That's not what she said. She said it's a question for biologists.

by **Trapper Gus** 26/03/22, 09:16 am

RQA wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:You don't define the term "woman" without a legal argument in front of you

That's not what she said. She said it's a question for biologists.

And she is correct, your point then is?

by **kingstonlake** 26/03/22, 09:32 am

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

That's not what she said. She said it's a question for biologists.

And she is correct, your point then is?

Exactly. Ask a biologist. It’s just irks a racist like RQA when a smart black woman knows a trap question when she sees it. It doesn’t even enter their small minds that a woman of color could actually be an equal (technically she’s not an equal, she’s far superior in intellect). I’m sure in his little pee brain that makes up stories about pandemic loans and businesses he supposedly runs he doesn’t thinks it’s remotely possible she’s qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court.

by RQA 26/03/22, 10:39 am

Trapper Gus wrote: your point then is?

My points are:

1. The leftist defense around here for this gaffe has been that she can't define "woman" because it might come up in a case. Sadly for this argument that's not why she said she wouldn't answer.

2. The reason she didn't answer, obvious to all, is that to answer the question would have angered her leftist managers.

by RQA 26/03/22, 10:40 am

KL wrote:Exactly. Ask a biologist. .

Except the woke crowd (I assume that includes you) tell us that "woman" isn't a matter of biology.

by **Trapper Gus** 26/03/22, 10:43 am

RQA wrote:
Exactly. Ask a biologist. .

Except the woke crowd (I assume that includes use) tell us that "woman" isn't a matter of biology.

So. woman isn't just "X" & "Y" and sexual organs. Which is science, not a "woke" opinion, or a RWNJ opinion either

As I pointed out, gender isn't just the "X" & "Y" chromosomes. Modern gene technology is showing there are other chromosomes involved.

As you know, watching Fox and other RWNJ sites only makes people less informed.

by **kingstonlake** 26/03/22, 11:24 am

I wonder if her leftist managers include all the republicans senators who have confirmed her appointments in the past. Sadly with racists like RQA out there they have to placate those types and now flip to major concerns. It works though. Undisputed facts show the base like RQA are less educated and prone to tactics that stimulate their low Intellect.

by PennSpartan 26/03/22, 11:36 am

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote: your point then is?

My points are:

1. The leftist defense around here for this gaffe has been that she can't define "woman" because it might come up in a case. Sadly for this argument that's not why she said she wouldn't answer.

2. The reason she didn't answer, obvious to all, is that to answer the question would have angered her leftist managers.

No, the reason she didn’t answer that question or the Dred Scott question is because they were intended to bait her. It would be like asking Amy Coney Barrett to explain how the Virgin Mary got pregnant without her husband wondering if she cheated on him.

by RQA 26/03/22, 01:58 pm

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

Except the woke crowd (I assume that includes use) tell us that "woman" isn't a matter of biology.

So. woman isn't just "X" & "Y" and sexual organs.

Well what is it then?

You are great at telling us what woman isn't but not so good on defining what it is.

by RQA 26/03/22, 02:01 pm

kingstonlake wrote: like RQA are less educated

I am willing to match my education credentials with any poster on this board.

Being the cat

that you are, you are likely too afraid to accept that challenge.

by RQA 26/03/22, 02:02 pm

PennSpartan wrote: It would be like asking Amy Coney Barrett to explain how the Virgin Mary got pregnant without her husband wondering if she cheated on him.

He did wonder that. My God leftists are ignorant.

by **kingstonlake** 26/03/22, 02:23 pm

RQA wrote:
kingstonlake wrote: like RQA are less educated

I am willing to match my education credentials with any poster on this board.

Being the that you are, you are likely too afraid to accept that challenge.

Why? You’ll just lie, make shit up, use anecdotal evidence, deflect, and prove none of what you claim. It’s your schtick. Either way, no matter your education level, you can still be a lying racist POS no matter what a piece of paper says.

by **Trapper Gus** 26/03/22, 02:38 pm

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

So. woman isn't just "X" & "Y" and sexual organs.

Well what is it then?

You are great at telling us what woman isn't but not so good on defining what it is.

POST # 712 - which you didn't read apparently.

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 - link to article detailing recent science - go back to 712 to click

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

by PennSpartan 26/03/22, 04:34 pm

RQA wrote:
PennSpartan wrote: It would be like asking Amy Coney Barrett to explain how the Virgin Mary got pregnant without her husband wondering if she cheated on him.

He did wonder that. My God leftists are ignorant.

The answer isn’t the problem. The question is. You still don’t get it.

by **Trapper Gus** 26/03/22, 07:04 pm

RQA wrote:
PennSpartan wrote: It would be like asking Amy Coney Barrett to explain how the Virgin Mary got pregnant without her husband wondering if she cheated on him.

He did wonder that. My God leftists are ignorant.

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. Jesus was a bastard, who by your laws should never have been born and should have been killed when he was born.

I guess Mary convincing Joesph that she "didn't" fuck another guy and that he deciding he didn't want her stoned to death was a miracle.

by PennSpartan 26/03/22, 07:58 pm

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

He did wonder that. My God leftists are ignorant.

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. Jesus was a bastard, who by your laws should never have been born and should have been killed when he was born.

I guess Mary convincing Joesph that she "didn't" fuck another guy and that he deciding he didn't want her stoned to death was a miracle.

The wedding night alone is a little odd:
Joseph- “You ready to get busy, Mary?”
Mary- “I’m waiting for someone a little bigger than you, Joe”.

by **Trapper Gus** 26/03/22, 08:13 pm

PennSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. Jesus was a bastard, who by your laws should never have been born and should have been killed when he was born.

I guess Mary convincing Joesph that she "didn't" fuck another guy and that he deciding he didn't want her stoned to death was a miracle.
The wedding night alone is a little odd:
Joseph- “You ready to get busy, Mary?”
Mary- “I’m waiting for someone a little bigger than you, Joe”.

In the old days, and they were not that long ago, maybe 150 years or so, when people became engaged it was then okay for them to have sex and become pregnant.

Joesph & Mary were engaged, but she fucked around with another guy, sort of a bachelorette last fling, and thus "Jesus".

"God" had nothing to do with it.

The only "miracle" was that Joesph was so head over heels that he went along with it, of course we have all known women who have that much SA and personal power to get guys to do that. Mary must have been really wild in bed.

by PennSpartan 26/03/22, 08:29 pm

Poor Joseph. Didn’t even get his noodle wet. LOL.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 27/03/22, 06:49 pm

So... republicans are still outraged by a smart, independent, black woman?

If only there was a way to predict this.

by **Trapper Gus** 27/03/22, 07:21 pm

Robert J Sakimano wrote:So... republicans are still outraged by a smart, independent, black woman?

If only there was a way to predict this.

Can you say "Mrs. Obama" children?

by RQA 27/03/22, 07:36 pm

Trapper Gus wrote:

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. .

Just when I think you couldn't be any more ignorant, you find a way to top yourself. 

by PennSpartan 27/03/22, 07:46 pm

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. .

Just when I think you couldn't be any more ignorant, you find a way to top yourself. 

More ignorant than believing a virgin was impregnated by God? The Supreme Court - Page 19 2803167989

The emoji is just for you!

by RQA 27/03/22, 07:49 pm

PennSpartan wrote:
More ignorant than believing a virgin was impregnated by God? The emoji is just for you!

Cute that you are trying to stick up for Trapper.

Trapper stated that Christian law called for Mary to be stoned to death. Do you agree with that?

by PennSpartan 27/03/22, 07:55 pm

RQA wrote:
PennSpartan wrote:
More ignorant than believing a virgin was impregnated by God? The emoji is just for you!

Cute that you are trying to stick up for Trapper.

Trapper stated that Christian law called for Mary to be stoned to death. Do you agree with that?

I don’t know. I didn’t read the Bible cover to cover. But I do think if Mary was pregnant she was banging someone. Maybe not her husband, but she certainly wasn’t a virgin.

by **Trapper Gus** 27/03/22, 07:59 pm

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

By Christen law she should have been stoned to death. .

Just when I think you couldn't be any more ignorant, you find a way to top yourself. 

The Old Testament law lists a number of behaviors that were punishable by death, including adultery. “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved

https://www.gotquestions.org/punishment-for-adultery.html

Standard punishment for someone who fools around with some who is not their fiancé, even if it is a "God", which it wasn't ... you're the one who started this thread down this path, own your values, dude.

The Supreme Court - Page 19 2803167989

edit - Oh, and btw, a virgin can become pregnant, so that dog won't hunt for Mary ...

And others think that an “intact” hymen is what defines virginity.

But in general, the most common concept for many people is not having vaginal penetration and the intact hymen is the proof of being a virgin.

If that’s your idea about being a virgin then it’s possible for young virgin women to become pregnant even though they didn’t have sexual intercourse.

https://aestheticbeats.com/health-virginity-pregnancy-virgin-pregnant/

bom

by RQA 27/03/22, 10:49 pm

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t know. I didn’t read the Bible cover to cover.

You wouldn't have had to read even one page of the Bible to know the answer. Anyone with a halfway decent education or had just been paying attention would know the answer.

I guess you are disqualified on both accounts.

by Sponsored content