… then how would you figure out a challenge to Roe v Wade (“woman’s right to have an abortion”), and of what use is US Title 9 (“equal funding for male and female sports”)?
4
The Dems aren’t even pretending they’re for America any more: they’re using their Senate numbers to appoint a Black Panther radical to the Supreme Court — who, incidentally, believes in pedophilia as a lifestyle option for the degenerate Democratic Party hierarchy.
Tucker Carlson reckons she’s the Democratic Party’s Greta Thunberg, but that’s putting it nicely. She’s a hyper-liberal who will give another vote for hyper-liberality on the US Supreme Court to bypass the legislature and wreck the middle class, the family and the rule of law — that is, to annihilate everything a majority of Americans would vote for.
4
“If a woman can’t be defined…”
Although I have to admit in defense of the lady, she did say “not enough context” – which, given the clearly politically charged nature of the event, is somewhat reasonable.
As in, what is the definition of a woman in terms of transgender issues, in terms of sexual discrimination, in terms of Title 9, in terms of what, exactly?
And yes, it may vary based on these contexts, at least from a legal PoV.
And she’s a judge, being “vetted” for seat on the supreme court, so presumably they are concerned with her legal views, not her personal opinion, right? I mean, they want to know how she might judge certain issues, don’t they? They expect her personal opinion to take a back seat to her legal opinion on “work related issues”, don’t they? They know that legal judgements are usually made on the narrowest possible grounds, don’t they?
Sure Ted – for you and me it’s pretty easy, right?
But what if you are deciding a legal case?
Might you come to different conclusions for a person who wants to try on a dress vs a person who wants to compete in a sporting competition vs which “gender” of gaol to send someone to?
For these very different situations you would need to consider “feelz”, hormone replacement and surgery very differently, wouldn’t you? Eg, shouldn’t a man who wants to go to a fancy dress party as a fairy be allowed to try on that pink dress, while someone with full “dangly bits” still attached and working go to a male gaol regardless of how much the think they are a woman?
And if you are asking such a generic question to a nominee to the supreme court, isn’t it reasonable for them to suggest there is insufficient context to respond?
Just pointing out it’s not as clear cut as it may seem at first glance.
1
It is exactly as clear cut as it looks at first glance.
9
Just pointing out it’s not as clear cut as it may seem at first glance.
It is clear cut. Dressing up, taking hormones and wishing on a star does not change your gender or biological sex.
10
“Dressing up, taking hormones and wishing on a star does not change your gender or biological sex.”
No, it doesn’t.
But “the law is an ass” sometimes, as we all well know – it is, after all, written by incompetent grifters. And a judge can only interpret the law, not make it.
If the law says, or potentially implies, doing those things makes you a woman, that is what the judge must deal with and define the limits under specific circumstances.
That is my point – they asked her, as a potential judge, a question that was very general. Presumably, if they were asking in good faith, they wanted a legal opinion. In which case , “not enough context” is a reasonable response.
Of course, it was likely not asked in good faith, but deliberately general as a way to make her the target of leftist grievance or hate, or if she answered as she did, the target of rightist ridicule – a “no win” situation. Seems it worked, so “well played”.
1
OK, I’ll accept that men can become women and be able to go to women’s prisons, female changing rooms, toilets etc, but on one condition. To be granted those rights, they must first lose their tackle, fully and irredeemably. If they accept this, then let them be whatever they want and I’ll be happy for the taxpayer to fund the surgery.
3
Wonder how Ms Blasey Ford is travelling these days.
2
It looked like a tranny.
The bottom line with Ketanji Jackson is that she’s as dumb as a fucking post
and totally unqualified, though she was sitting on a Gold Mine
around 30 years ago.
1
The bottom line with Ketanji Jackson is that she’s as dumb as a fucking post
and totally unqualified, though she was sitting on a Gold Mine
around 30 years ago.
Makes sense to me Ed, should fit in with Biden, Camel and Nancy, looks like a perfect fit. The upside is they can add their IQs together and score under 100.
Love it ??
If a woman can’t be defined, then what’s a man?
“If a woman can’t be defined, then what’s a man?”
Obviously, the exact opposite.
000
“If a woman can’t be defined…”
… then how would you figure out a challenge to Roe v Wade (“woman’s right to have an abortion”), and of what use is US Title 9 (“equal funding for male and female sports”)?
The Dems aren’t even pretending they’re for America any more: they’re using their Senate numbers to appoint a Black Panther radical to the Supreme Court — who, incidentally, believes in pedophilia as a lifestyle option for the degenerate Democratic Party hierarchy.
Tucker Carlson reckons she’s the Democratic Party’s Greta Thunberg, but that’s putting it nicely. She’s a hyper-liberal who will give another vote for hyper-liberality on the US Supreme Court to bypass the legislature and wreck the middle class, the family and the rule of law — that is, to annihilate everything a majority of Americans would vote for.
“If a woman can’t be defined…”
Although I have to admit in defense of the lady, she did say “not enough context” – which, given the clearly politically charged nature of the event, is somewhat reasonable.
As in, what is the definition of a woman in terms of transgender issues, in terms of sexual discrimination, in terms of Title 9, in terms of what, exactly?
And yes, it may vary based on these contexts, at least from a legal PoV.
And she’s a judge, being “vetted” for seat on the supreme court, so presumably they are concerned with her legal views, not her personal opinion, right? I mean, they want to know how she might judge certain issues, don’t they? They expect her personal opinion to take a back seat to her legal opinion on “work related issues”, don’t they? They know that legal judgements are usually made on the narrowest possible grounds, don’t they?
Nope, no idea.
Sure Ted – for you and me it’s pretty easy, right?
But what if you are deciding a legal case?
Might you come to different conclusions for a person who wants to try on a dress vs a person who wants to compete in a sporting competition vs which “gender” of gaol to send someone to?
For these very different situations you would need to consider “feelz”, hormone replacement and surgery very differently, wouldn’t you? Eg, shouldn’t a man who wants to go to a fancy dress party as a fairy be allowed to try on that pink dress, while someone with full “dangly bits” still attached and working go to a male gaol regardless of how much the think they are a woman?
And if you are asking such a generic question to a nominee to the supreme court, isn’t it reasonable for them to suggest there is insufficient context to respond?
Just pointing out it’s not as clear cut as it may seem at first glance.
It is exactly as clear cut as it looks at first glance.
It is clear cut. Dressing up, taking hormones and wishing on a star does not change your gender or biological sex.
“Dressing up, taking hormones and wishing on a star does not change your gender or biological sex.”
No, it doesn’t.
But “the law is an ass” sometimes, as we all well know – it is, after all, written by incompetent grifters. And a judge can only interpret the law, not make it.
If the law says, or potentially implies, doing those things makes you a woman, that is what the judge must deal with and define the limits under specific circumstances.
That is my point – they asked her, as a potential judge, a question that was very general. Presumably, if they were asking in good faith, they wanted a legal opinion. In which case , “not enough context” is a reasonable response.
Of course, it was likely not asked in good faith, but deliberately general as a way to make her the target of leftist grievance or hate, or if she answered as she did, the target of rightist ridicule – a “no win” situation. Seems it worked, so “well played”.
OK, I’ll accept that men can become women and be able to go to women’s prisons, female changing rooms, toilets etc, but on one condition. To be granted those rights, they must first lose their tackle, fully and irredeemably. If they accept this, then let them be whatever they want and I’ll be happy for the taxpayer to fund the surgery.
Wonder how Ms Blasey Ford is travelling these days.
It looked like a tranny.
The bottom line with Ketanji Jackson is that she’s as dumb as a fucking post
and totally unqualified, though she was sitting on a Gold Mine
around 30 years ago.
The bottom line with Ketanji Jackson is that she’s as dumb as a fucking post
and totally unqualified, though she was sitting on a Gold Mine
around 30 years ago.
Makes sense to me Ed, should fit in with Biden, Camel and Nancy, looks like a perfect fit. The upside is they can add their IQs together and score under 100.
This song is clearly redundant: Helen Reddy – I Am Woman (1971)
“The upside is they can
addmultiply their IQs together and score under 100.”FIFY
Define a woman, I can’t I’m not a biologist.
I loved the woman watching the swim event retort. ‘This is insane. I’m not a vet but I know it’s a dog!’