I haven't written or talked much about Biden's SCOTUS nominee. My first thought is that Biden handicapped anyone he chose by announcing that his primary criteria for selection were skin color and gender. Had he not been pandering, he could have nominated a black woman, without all the hoopla, and avoided some of the push back. The chances that Biden would nominate anyone that I fully support are very slim. Having said that, I think that Jackson is about as good as we're likely to get from someone like Biden. Her answers on questions about 2A and abortion were the only rational answers she could have given, and as long as she doesn't to a major reversal on those she should be OK.
What I found interesting was her inability to define (or her dodge of defining) "woman". Given the fact that women are a federally protected class, how could she possibly rule on cases involving women's rights or discrimination against women if she can't define what a woman is?
Twitter is amused.
"You don't have to be a biologist to know what a woman is." Katie Pavlich
"What does this even mean? The GOP does go a little hard on abortion rights...but you guys have no accepted working definition IS." Will Reilly
"While I kind of like her, it's worth noting that the person who said that Judge Brown-Jackson would never have been nominated if it weren't for her race and sex was Joe Biden." Will Reilly
"The "what is a woman movement" has begun." Matt Walsh
"If it's unclear what a woman is, how does Biden know he's nominated one?" Seth Dillon
"But how then did KBJ use the word woman over and over especially when discussing Roe v. Wade? How can she not define woman but then use the word in a specific legal context? How can she be a judge when she can't define a basic word?" Tim Pool
"In order to have a Supreme Count committed to the rights of all Americans, including women, every justice needs to understand that there is such a thing as a woman, as distinct from a man. Yet when asked to define the word "woman" Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji-Brown said, "I don't know." The hypocrisy and absurdity of this is why she was nominated by president Biden in large part because she was a woman." Tulsi Gabbard
We've gone from "Believe all women.", to "Believe some women" to, "What is a woman." in a very short time.
I could find more, but work is calling.
My prediction stands that she'll get more GOP votes that any of Trump's nominees got and possibly more than all three combined. Because the DFL is not ever blindly partisan about anything.
It's telling that this intelligent, well educated, well qualified, front hole/birthing person was quite clear that the scientific discipline where the definition of "woman" is to be found is in biology. It's almost like she's convinced that being a woman is a biological state of being rather than a metaphysical state of mind.
45 comments:
Due to issues with my impending move, I've not been able to follow this issue too closely. To me, the mere insistence on selecting based on race and sex is discriminatory in a way no employer in the private sector could survive without a lawsuit. All honest senators should reject her on that basis alone and they would be right to do so, even given the president's right to select whomever he wished. That right doesn't provide him the ability to flout our laws...laws that his party likely had more influence in enacting. As has been said by many (in not so many words), Biden should have kept his pandering mouth shut about such criteria and still selected according to them and he would have been better off having done so. It would've been harder to criticize him for it, even if everyone knew that was his intention.
I want to make it clear that I am fully aware that GOP presidents have done the same thing. Reagan nominated O'Conner because she was a woman (still is, too), and also had Amalya Lyle Kerse on his short list. (Carter did, too, so did Bush 41 and Clinton) Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett. Janice Rogers Brown was nominated by GW Bush (and then was filibustered by an abject moron named Sen. Joe Biden). The question would be, which were selected primarily on the basis of their race and sex, as opposed to being selected on merit first, and then perhaps put forth because those superficial boxes happened to checked as well. Biden clearly made the superficial the primary criteria. There's no doubt of it and she should be rejected as a result.
It's not at all likely Biden even has a good sense of how to measure the judicial wisdom of any nominee he selects. What little I've picked up suggests problems with her judicial philosophy, as noted by Jeanine Piro last night on The Five, and by Mark Levin when he demonstrated moves by her which contradicts how she's done her job so far. I've a few things saved which deal with her position on gun rights, and I've heard quite enough to understand how poorly she dealt with child porn cases. She's had more than a couple and when she was in a position to sentence, she chose to sentence below the minimum standard for the crimes.
It's enough for me to know that anyone Biden might select is likely worthy opposing and rejecting, simply because Biden is a known moron. He's proven himself to be the stupidest president we've had in our lifetime, and I see no reason to believe he'll prove that untrue over the remaining time he's in office.
I also find it extremely problematic that Dick Durbin has blocked access to her full record as a jurist. Why would anyone wish to deny those tasked with advise and consent all the information possible? How is that move not illegal?
what's interesting is how math plays into this. If you limit the selection to "blacks" only you exclude roughly 87% of the population. Limiting that to "black women" means that you exclude roughly 93% of the population. So, statistically, you've almost guaranteed that there is a "more qualified" candidate for SCOTUS out there. Had Biden chosen NOT to pander, they wouldn't be dealing with this problem at all.
As I said, she seems less objectionable than Sotomayor or Kagan, which is about all I could hope for. If she was honest about her views on Roe, then she's not bent on expanding abortion. If she was honest about her views on the 2A, then she's not bent on further eroding that right.
The bigger problem is this leftist commitment to a narrative that denies things that don't fit the current narrative. The fact that a reasonably intelligent, reasonably well educated, person is claiming that only a "biologist" is capable of identifying what a woman is is what I find most concerning.
The more I look into this, the more I believe one needn't have to "do the math" to know a more qualified person is out there being ignored due to being of the wrong race and sex. I just read the following and wanted to post it here because of its relevance:
https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2022/03/23/biden-scotus-nominee-is-the-most-qualified-ever-no-shes-not-n539906
...and then I read this one just now:
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/03/23/lindsey-graham-delivers-the-perfect-response-to-ketanji-brown-jacksons-troubling-answers-n539813?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=f954114402631c606cd4d35d9f8c8c25
"Less objectionable than Sotomayor or Kagan" seems an unimpressive low bar. Maybe there's another Janice Rogers Brown or Amalya Lyle Kerse out there who Biden can be pressured to nominate instead, thereby satisfying his belief he's doing good by choosing a black woman while actually nominating someone who truly is considered highly qualified despite race and gender. Heck, both those women are still alive...just nominate them!!
Craig... " My first thought is that Biden handicapped anyone he chose by announcing that his primary criteria for selection were skin color and gender."
1. Stupidly false claim. What he said was that, amongst all the well-qualified, great judges of all backgrounds, he would choose a black woman for the role. But of course, the primary criteria is their excellence as a judge.
Don't make stupidly false claims.
2. Many white nationalists and racists will make this same stupidly false claim. You should be rebuking the racists, not standing with them.
3. Every time a white ally stands with racists, a demon gets his pitchfork.
In my book two things already make her unqualified:
She doesn't know what a woman is.
She doesn't know when life begins.
These are both basic biology questions. If she doesn't know the answers she is not qualified.
I tried to be fair and say she didn't want to answer the "Define 'woman'" question, but if you hear her, she doesn't say she won't. She says she can't. Not a lack of willingness; a lack of ability.
""Less objectionable than Sotomayor or Kagan" seems an unimpressive low bar."
I'm not saying that it's a high bar. I am saying that he could have nominated someone significantly more left leaning. The reality is that those on the right are not going to be excited about anyone Biden was going to nominate. I'm simply suggesting that's she's less objectionable than we could have gotten.
1. That's not a claim, it's an opinion. It's an opinion qualified by my pointing out that had Biden not been pandering, her sex and race wouldn't have been an issue. But feel free to respond to your warped hunch about what you think I said.
2. There was no false claim made. This passive aggressive sideways attempt to sneak in the implication that I'm a racist is simply laughable.
3. What the hell are you talking about. I'm literally saying that Biden is the only person responsible for making her race an issue, and that had he simply nominated her without the pandering that we would not be having this discussion.
Glenn,
She can define "woman" she's clever enough to know that it's not politically expedient for her to do so. Similarly, as a "front hole" "birthing person", she likely knows exactly when her children's lives began, she also knows that she can't say it.
What's interesting is that by saying that only a "biologist" can define "woman", she's acknowledging that the definition of "woman" something biological.
It'd be interesting to look at what "qualified" actually means in this context. Constitutionally being a lawyer isn't a required qualification, nor is being a judge. So, it seems that anyone who's either a lawyer or a judge possesses at least some minimal baseline of "qualification". It's semantic, but I think that "qualified" is the wrong term to use in this situation.
Again, I'm not a fan of hers, just pointing out that it could be worse.
Stan,
I think she was trying to dodge given an answer that was going to hurt her chances of confirmation. Had she given the correct answer, the DFL would have abandoned her in a heartbeat. Had she given the politically expedient answer that goes along with the current narrative, she'd have gotten zero GOP votes. She tried to thread the needle, and inadvertently confirmed that "woman" is a biological category, probably not what she wanted.
I think that there should be a corollary to Godwin's law that covers those that invoke racism instead of NAZI's.
I think Godwin's law easily covers any such intellectually lazy attacks, be it nazism, racism, or any phobia of which a lefty conjures to avoid addressing the substance of an issue.
I'm not about to place any wagers, but I believe one could determine the GOP has a history of supporting SCOTUS nominees of Dem presidents which isn't reciprocated by Dems when roles are reversed. We've certainly seen a distinct difference in the behavior of both parties when conducting confirmation hearings. Consider Corey Booker's embarrassing performance in his support of this nominee versus his grilling of Bret Kavanaugh about drinking beer in high school. What a farce.
I agree that it could be interpreted that way.
I've pointed out that even in the more recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings the GOP is much more likely to vote for a DFL nominee than the reverse. It's not even close. The fact that the DFL is engaging in the same sorts of tactics that they lambasted the GOP for tells us plenty about their goals. To be fair, both sides are guilty of this sort of crap during confirmation hearings. At least we know that it started (in the modern era) with Biden's "lynching" of Clarence Thomas.
I don't necessarily agree with the "both sides do it" argument here (and really, I don't agree in general). While there are rather superficial similarities, there's no real comparison with the level of tripe the Dems bring up to justify their objections to GOP nominated jurists. I think the GOP are generally...if not definitely...more likely to focus on substantial concerns which mean something in determining the worthiness for a lifetime appointment. The GOP far and away reflects a better understanding of the importance of the process and of confirming only the best possible choices provided by whomever the president is. I think the degree to which that is true is simply the natural inclination of both sides to want to confirm whomever their party's president selects. I don't think, however, there's a GOP version of a Corey Booker. Who the hell votes for people like these?
Craig... "I've pointed out that even in the more recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings the GOP is much more likely to vote for a DFL nominee than the reverse"
Kavanaugh had multiple sex abuse charges against him. As did Thomas. Credible charges. Democrats took a reasonable, principled stand against those candidates.
Barrett was nominated just weeks before the end of the Trump train wreck and McConnell had already established the principle of "No nominees in the final year of a president..." So Democrats righteously held him to the standard HE established, exposing his dangerous hypocrisy.
On the other hand, Jackson is an excellent judge with no scandals and no reason to vote against her.
The GOP has become hopelessly hypocritical and villainous.
I don;t disagree with that, but I still think that the GOP has been moving toward the DFL tactics as a response to hearing starting with Boden's lynching of Thomas. I can't help but wonder how things would change of they stopped televising them live.
So long as the press and/or public is allowed in the hearings, they'll act as they do now...at least for the most part. I don't know that the GOP does the kind of grandstanding and patronizing as the Dems do, but frankly, I don't watch except that which is shown on the various shows I watch. But I think I can safely say that the GOP asks the same type of questions regardless of which president nominated the jurist. The Dems ask all manner of nonsense and never anything which demonstrates objectivity on their part, nor that which truly elicits an understanding of the jurist's ability to do the job. They seek to entrap with crap for GOP nominees, and underhand them softballs to the Dem nominees...unless they're doing the pathetic Corey Booker gushing and praising.
"Kavanaugh had multiple sex abuse charges against him. As did Thomas. Credible charges. Democrats took a reasonable, principled stand against those candidates."
They weren't at all "credible". How do you confirm credibility here? Simply because the charges were leveled at a GOP nominated jurist. You're as much a fraud as the party you support.
"Barrett was nominated just weeks before the end of the Trump train wreck and McConnell had already established the principle of "No nominees in the final year of a president..." So Democrats righteously held him to the standard HE established, exposing his dangerous hypocrisy."
It wasn't at all the same standard and only a partisan moron would dare suggest such a thing. When McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, it was at the end of Obama's second term in office. There was no way he could get a third, and for him to push his choice so late in the game denies the public their voice in the matter. But Trump wasn't at the end of a second term. Setting aside the fraud that led to Biden's unjust placement as president, Trump should have had a second term and thus there was no double standard.
"On the other hand, Jackson is an excellent judge with no scandals and no reason to vote against her."
Here, too, you just parrot the party line. "Excellent" based on what? Have you reviewed her entire record? Did Dick Durbin send you what he withheld from the GOP senators? While I have no particular reason to believe she's the worst Biden could have offered, we don't judge a judge on the basis of how the legal profession rates one...especially given the legal profession's political leanings. Thank the Lord for that! She should be rejected on the basis of how she was selected, which was NOT on merit, but solely on her race and sex.
"The GOP has become hopelessly hypocritical and villainous."
If YOU accuse them, they are definitely the party for America. Good gosh, you're a hypocritical fraud and fake!
Do you two recognize that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reasons not to approve her nomination? That not voting to approve her will make the GOP to be the schmucks they are?
Dan,
Do you realize that I've been suggesting that she will (and probably should) be confirmed? Do you just substitute your made up bullshit, biased, prejudiced, fantasies, for the reality of what people actually say?
In Dan's world any charges made by the DFL against a conservative are "credible" even after they were unable to provide any actual evidence, but any questions raised by conservatives are automatically "racist" or whatever.
Of course let's not forget that Biden was personally involved in blocking Janice Rogers Brown, from becoming the first black woman on SCOTUS. I guess Biden hasn't always highly valued black women on SCOTUS.
Marshal... "Excellent" based on what? "
Peer review.
"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.
The testimony from the American Bar Association and other legal advocates came after two days of questioning from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee."
"Outstanding, excellent, superior, superb,” testified Ann Claire Williams, chair of the American Bar Association committee that makes recommendations on federal judges."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thegrio.com/2022/03/24/lawyers-group-judge-jackson-stellar-reputation/amp/
"Outstanding, excellent, superior, superb,”
But then, Marshal and other idiot conservatives have always been quite clear that they know better than experts in various fields.
The question isn't whether or not Judge Jackson is extremely qualified. That's settled.
The question is why would anyone take modern anti-expert conservatives seriously anymore?
Marshal... "solely on her race and sex."
Another damned racist alternative "fact" from today's modern conservatives.
What a damnable, diabolical shame.
Craig... "Biden was personally involved in blocking Janice Rogers Brown, from becoming the first black woman on SCOTUS."
1. She was not nominated to SCOTUS. Many Democrats and other rational, moral people objected her nomination to another federal court position, not the Supreme Court.
2. They were opposed to her “based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited ‘a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.’”
Good for him and others opposed to her judicial activism.
"Do you two recognize that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reasons not to approve her nomination? That not voting to approve her will make the GOP to be the schmucks they are?"
Of course there are reasons not to approve her. First and foremost was the reason she was selected by Biden in the first place...on the basis of her sex and race. That flies in the face of everything Dan pretends to support with regard to racism and sexism. But then, "progressives" don't realize when you select on such basis, you're necessarily discriminating against others because they aren't black or female.
Secondly, the limited info available to judge her performance on lower courts and on that sentencing committee indicates flaws in her understanding of her job. Sentencing guidelines were not her job as a jurist.
Thirdly, her answer to Blackburn's question is entirely problematic if she's ever to rule on issues regarding sex...such as the lie of transgenderism, but also on any other sex discrimination case which may come before her. Will she recuse herself since she doesn't know how to define what a woman is?
Not voting to approve will confirm the wisdom of the GOP. I hope they all refuse to approve her, and that one Dem will join in (Kirsten Sinema?).
Dan,
That's a bizarre way of acknowledging that Biden was involved in blocking someone who was likely to have been the first black woman SCOTUS justice. Interestingly enough, it seems reasonable that one COULD logically and rationally object the KBJ based on her pattern of apparent leniency toward sex offenders. What's clear is that Biden's views on the importance of black women as federal judges have changed over the tears.
Piece of shit arguments like yours need to be flushed. Stop with the assaults on a qualified judge.
History will judge you and yours harshly.
Given that undeniable reality that I NOT engaged in any "assaults on a qualified judge", something Biden has a history of (both Thomas and Brown, who are both black), and that I have presented Biden's choice to block a previous "black woman" judge which is part of his history, I'm forced to conclude that you've concluded that your only choice is to lash out with expletive laden bullshit.
The notion that you have perfect foreknowledge about what "history" will judge is laughable. The only judgement I'm concerned with is in front of God after I die. Your fantasies don't interest me in the least.
"Marshal... "Excellent" based on what? "
Peer review."
Ah! So Dan counters with exactly that which I've asserted is beneath consideration based on the political leanings of the legal profession. What matters is a review of her record in current and previous jobs and how closely they align with the Constitution and respect for separation of powers. And as she wasn't selected based on anything other than her race and sex, to approve of her as the next Justice of the SCOTUS is unjustified.
"But then, Marshal and other idiot conservatives have always been quite clear that they know better than experts in various fields."
Just as I don't need to be a biologist to know how to define what a woman is, I don't need to have passed the bar to have an opinion as to whether or not a selection is qualified for the SCOTUS. What I've heard of the hearing demonstrates a better selection can easily be found. She's clearly too left leaning as her partial record has demonstrated and more than the faith of ACB, the political leanings of KBJ has manifested strongly in her track record. Likely more than we'll ever know given Durbin's egregious withholding of her entire record.
"The question isn't whether or not Judge Jackson is extremely qualified. That's settled."
Based on the word of the legal profession? What could be more biased? Their opinion doesn't qualify as "settled". But to a leftist asshat like you, it's all that's necessary and damn the consequences. Indeed, you salivate over the potential consequences you no doubt expect out of someone like her. But maybe we'll luck out and she'll be far less what you hope for than some of the GOP nominated jurists in the past have proven to be.
"The question is why would anyone take modern anti-expert conservatives seriously anymore?"
Because we're possessed of greater wisdom than even your cherry-picked "experts" have shown themselves to be, and certainly greater than any YOU'VE ever shown.
"Another damned racist alternative "fact" from today's modern conservatives.
What a damnable, diabolical shame."
Not alternative, but actual fact, as Biden's own words during his "campaign" have proven. He promised to appoint a black woman. That was HIS criteria and you want to pretend it wasn't the main criteria. That makes you a liar...or rather is simply more evidence you're a liar. That you're a racist is beyond question as well as you seek to accuse us based on nothing but you're desire that we be racist in order for you to posture as morally superior. Recall that your moron president opposed at least two black nominees for federal courts until he needed to pander with his own.
"1. She was not nominated to SCOTUS. Many Democrats and other rational, moral people objected her nomination to another federal court position, not the Supreme Court."
She was nominated to a federal position, while your geezer tried to block Clarence Thomas' appointment, so go ahead and pretend you're not the liar he is.
"2. They were opposed to her “based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited ‘a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.’”"
That's the excuse they used. But, for example, there's no Constitutional basis for affirmative action, so opposing attempts to exploit that concept is what one would expect from someone tasked with interpreting law and its constitutional connection. But you couldn't provide a single case where that claim is true if you found an adult to help you. Keep in mind, she too was considered qualified by the same organizations which claim Jackson is. Brown was no activist. Conservatives on the bench don't behave that way. That's a lefty thing. POS arguments like yours need to be flushed in favor of reasoned and fact based arguments you find problematic.
Of course a nomination to the federal bench is usually a stepping stone to a nomination to SCOTUS. Biden just killed her chances to be the first black justice a little earlier than usual. I guess it's OK to attack a black judge when you've got the (D) behind your name, and can come up with an excuse that'll satisfy the low information DFL voter base.
Marshal... "while your geezer tried to block Clarence Thomas' appointment..."
Y'all are entirely missing the point that Thomas and the frat boy had credible charges against them. Judge Jackson has no reason to oppose her. Lauded by her colleagues, listens to experts, gives factually correct answers.
Approve her and move on.
Bullshit, Dan. Neither Thomas nor "the frat boy" had credible charges against them. That IS the point. They were falsely accused in both cases, but your kind doesn't care about truth and facts, but only disparaging opposition in whatever way you think allows you do succeed..."whatever it takes", even if it means destroying the reputation of better people than you. It's what you do and you do it constantly. So does your party.
Jackson's colleagues are mostly just like her, they are not the "experts" to whom the senate should base any decision regarding one of their profession unless they have unassailable evidence someone like Jackson performs according to what is demanded of one of that profession. Both Thomas and Kavanaugh were rated well by the legal profession and you certainly didn't care then, you hypocrite. And her answers on legit questions were crap. That is, except to partisan hacks like yourself.
Reject her and find better based on merit, not race and sex.
Marshal, that YOU THINK they charges were not credible does not mean that other rational people don't find them credible. Look, it's easy... Like this:
I UNDERSTAND that many conservatives (and maybe others) don't find the charges credible. Unfortunately, due to the terrible widespread reality of men assaulting/harassing women and the inability to prove it most of the time, we have no way of proving it in either of these cases. So, it just comes down to credibility. Many of us (most of us?) find all the women accusers to be credible in these cases. You all don't.
I'm glad to recognize the reality that you all don't. You should have at least the adult-thinking bandwidth to acknowledge many people of goodwill disagree with your opinions. And that neither of us can prove it.
Craig... "It's almost like she's convinced that being a woman is a biological state of being rather than a metaphysical state of mind."
What she is clearly saying is that it's not as simple as taking a peek down their pants/dress to determine gender. Gender is a complex biological matter and it's not all in the person's pants. That's the reality of it according to experts, including experts in biology.
There's nothing wrong with her answer.
Marshal... "Both Thomas and Kavanaugh were rated well by the legal profession and you certainly didn't care then..."
BECAUSE THEY HAD CREDIBLE CHARGES OF SEXUAL impropriety. That's what you STILL don't get. You can't just erase it because you really want it to be true that they were choirboys and not perverts.
Also, while Jackson and Kavanaugh (prior to the sex scandal becoming public) were judged "well qualified" by the ABA, Clarence Thomas did not. From the NYT back in the day:
"The American Bar Association has given Judge Clarence Thomas a mixed rating in evaluating his fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice, officials of the group said today.
The bar association committee that conducts the evaluations split on President Bush's choice to succeed Thurgood Marshall on the Court, with a majority rating Judge Thomas "qualified" for the job and a minority of two members finding him "unqualified." No one on the committee found him to be "well qualified," the third available rating and the association's highest."
And the ABA was more mixed on Kavanaugh. From WaPo...
"Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it...
The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”
“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”
fyi.
"There's nothing wrong with her answer."
Not to you there isn't.
Again, I agree with her acknowledgement that "woman" is a biological state, as opposed to a metaphysical state.
However, how can she rule on cases about "women" as a protected class under US law, if she can't define what a "woman" is? How can she rule on Title 9 cases, when she can't define "woman"?
This whole "all in a person's pants" bullshit is simply a straw man. The reality is that the biological differences between men and women go beyond what's in someone's "pants". You could say it's goes to what's in a person's genes though.
Craig... "However, how can she rule on cases about "women" as a protected class under US law, if she can't define what a "woman" is? How can she rule on Title 9 cases, when she can't define "woman"?"
Like anyone else, I would hope: Based on the evidence at hand and expert testimony.
What specifically does she need to know about the definition of "woman" that you think she doesn't understand?
By the way, Craig, how do you define "woman..."?
In the same manner that a grade school-er would?
If so, maybe it's time to upgrade your education.
Dan/Craig...
"There's nothing wrong with her answer."
"Not to you there isn't."
There's nothing biologically wrong with her answer. There's nothing factually wrong with her answer.
The point being is that biologists/scientists will tell you that gender is not as simple as sneaking a peak between someone's legs.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you have any biologists/scientists you can find who say otherwise?
"Craig... "However, how can she rule on cases about "women" as a protected class under US law, if she can't define what a "woman" is? How can she rule on Title 9 cases, when she can't define "woman"?"
Like anyone else, I would hope: Based on the evidence at hand and expert testimony."
So you're good with "hoping", while the rest of us would prefer knowing. The fact is, while you flippantly respond "like anyone else would", the rest of us are honest enough to acknowledge the sad reality too many on the left are more than happy to leave definitions open in order to more easily further their self-serving agenda.
"What specifically does she need to know about the definition of "woman" that you think she doesn't understand?"
She needs to know enough to answer the freakin' question in an era where asshats like you push the lie of 437 genders. Her refusal to answer is dishonest, because no one thinks the question's beyond her ability and understanding...even while not being a biologist. If it is beyond her ability and understanding, she's not qualified for a lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS ruling on Constitutional issues which will impact the nation. Honest people understand this basic idea.
"By the way, Craig, how do you define "woman..."?"
Is Craig up for the next opening on the SCOTUS? What an asshole question to ask, as if it mitigates the obligation for an actual nominee to answer Blackburn's question.
"There's nothing biologically wrong with her answer. There's nothing factually wrong with her answer."
She didn't give an answer, liar. She deflected from doing so on the cheapest of grounds. Blackburn didn't require her to have a degree in biology. She required that Jackson answer her questions, as is her right on behalf of the American people to have an answer given.
"The point being is that biologists/scientists will tell you that gender is not as simple as sneaking a peak between someone's legs."
Not all of them will. I doubt even most, though how many are too concerned about their careers and the likelihood of leftist pervs causing them trouble for speaking the truth will make it appear there's some majority who are are dishonest as to assert there are more than two. As we've seen at my blog, you're no closer to providing proof of the assertion than you were before I did the post.
"Do you recognize that reality? Do you have any biologists/scientists you can find who say otherwise?"
I've done that at my blog. And as is your custom, you've done nothing to debunk or rebut their responses to the absurdity except to provide more studies which don't back it up.
"Like anyone else, I would hope: Based on the evidence at hand and expert testimony. What specifically does she need to know about the definition of "woman" that you think she doesn't understand?"
Well, neither of these questions actually answer, or even address the question as asked. I have to wonder why not. How does one defend the rights of an entire protected class of people, if one can't define what constitutes membership in said protected class,
Woman- Adult human female. Females are individuals who do, or did, or will, or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Female- with a reproductive system, functioning or not, that is directed towards production of large gametes and the gestation of offspring in mammalian species. A human being with XX chromosomes.
"In the same manner that a grade school-er would?"
Excellent job of erecting a straw man, minimizing the nature of biology, and elevating the metaphysical over the physical.
"There's nothing biologically wrong with her answer. There's nothing factually wrong with her answer."
What a bizarre take. You're literally agreeing that the only way to define "woman" is biologically. Of course the reality is that it's possible to identify all sorts of biologically different organisms without needing a degree in biology. We all can identify things like dogs, cats, fish, and the like and differentiate them from other species with a grade school education. Clearly, more specialized knowledge might be required to delineate between subspecies (between a Labrador and a Poodle for example), but again millions of non biologists make those identifications daily.
"The point being is that biologists/scientists will tell you that gender is not as simple as sneaking a peak between someone's legs."
1. While all "biologists" are "scientists", not all "scientists" are "biologists", nice try to substitute the general for the specific.
2. Yet no one is suggesting that.
"Do you recognize that reality? Do you have any biologists/scientists you can find who say otherwise?"
Given the reality that you've not mentioned a single one, I find this demand beneath dignifying with a response.
Maybe try answering the earlier question with an answer, not two questions and multiple comments of obfuscation.
"In biology, among placental mammals, a female is a being who has (only) the reproductive system (regardless of the functioning of said reproductive system) associated with the production of large rather than small gametes. This is generally-as in 99% of the time-reflected in both chromosomal order and genitalia."
Many drugs are prescribed differently (or not at all) for men or women. Should a Dr prescribe a drug based on the biological makeup of their patient, or based on the patient's convictions about their "gender"? Should the Dr go along with the patient's convictions about their "gender" even if giving them the dose consistent with their "gender conviction" would harm or kill them?
I would love to see Dan produce an explanation for his defense of the LGBT agenda without reference to "a history of oppression", as if that has any bearing on whether or not the agenda is true rather than based on absolute lies.
Marshal... "I would love to see Dan produce an explanation for his defense of the LGBT agenda..."
1. There is no agenda beyond "Don't oppress us!"
2. The reason for that minimal and basic low-bar agenda is because of real world oppression in world history. What is rationally wrong with that agenda??
1. There is no agenda beyond "Don't oppress us!"
Dan is such a bald-faced liar. EVEN the LGBTQXYZ perverts admit they are grooming children in the government indoctrination centers (surreptitiously called "public schools").
The agenda is to force everyone's acceptance of their perversions. No one is oppressing these perverts, we just want to be left alone and not forced to participate in fake marriages by being forced to make cakes or floral arrangements for perverse and ungodly couplings. We don't want to be forced to accept men pretending to be women to participate in women's sports or enter women's private spaces such as restrooms, etc.
The agenda is sexual anarchy.
And Trabue is just another pervert supporting and promoting the agenda to make the USA another Sodom and Gomorrah.
Glenn beat me to it.
Dan responds to a challenge to defend the agenda without reference to oppression by daring to suggest the agenda is "don't oppress us". It clearly has gone far beyond that, which was already resolved with the Lawrence v Texas ruling and existing laws against assault & battery and murder. If "don't oppress" is the alpha and omega of the LGBT agenda, their "battle" was won some time ago. But that's not the agenda in reality and Dan is once again lying intentionally. That's not Ducky at all, Dan.
Post a Comment