The Nehor Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 43 minutes ago, smac97 said: A witness in a trial who was as evasive as Judge Jackson would be admonished by the judge. Ironic. I think the judge would admonish the lawyer first for asking such an obviously disingenuous and baiting question. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 @smac97 I wonder how well soon-to-be-Justice Jackson can think on her feet. One would think, if she didn't want to answer Senator Blackburn's question, at least she could have said something akin to what former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once reportedly said about obscenity: "Senator, I can't define woman, but I know one when I see one."
Kenngo1969 Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I think the judge would admonish the lawyer first for asking such an obviously disingenuous and baiting question. On the contrary: The question posed to soon-to-be-Justice Jackson was competent, relevant, probative, material ... I could go on ...
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 47 minutes ago, smac97 said: There were no doubt many other qualified candidates for the position. It is an unassailable fact, though, the Pres. Biden promised, and later followed through, to nominate based on A) skin color and B) sex. This is perhaps the primary reason I find affirmative action so troubling, particularly when it is as obvious and overt as what we saw here. So we should ignore skin color (probably impossible) and choose candidates based purely on qualifications? Perhaps we should look at some samples and see who is best at doing that. On an unrelated note I am just going to put this here. No reason. Interesting. About 60% of the US population is caucasian. So assuming no race is inherently superior what are the odds of almost 100% of the qualified people being from that 60%? Hmmmmmm…….. And Mods: Smac started it. 2
The Nehor Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: On the contrary: The question posed to soon-to-be-Justice Jackson was competent, relevant, probative, material ... I could go on ... Nope. 1
smac97 Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I think the judge would admonish the lawyer first for asking such an obviously disingenuous and baiting question. Senator Cruz did a pretty good job of providing a legal predicate as to the legitimacy of this line of inquiry. 2
Duncan Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Senator Cruz did a pretty good job of providing a legal predicate as to the legitimacy of this line of inquiry. is that the idiot who thinks that reading a book will turn one gay? mind you him reading a book didn't make him smart 1
Kenngo1969 Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: On the contrary: The question posed to soon-to-be-Justice Jackson was competent, relevant, probative, material ... I could go on ... 40 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Nope. Yep. 1
Stormin' Mormon Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 (edited) The memes about Justice Jackson and the definition of a woman are a bit overblown and simplistic. But so is the defense of Justice Jackson. The question didn't come out of nowhere, and it was asked only after a more substantial discussion of gender issues was precluded by Juatice Jackson's poor preparation. Check the transcript of the exchange, which Smac linked to a page or two back. Twice, Senator Blackburn attempted to engage the Justice on the writings of the late Justice Ginsburg, and twice Justice Jackson said she wasn't familiar with them. It was only at that point that the senator resorted to the now-infamous question. Both participants were ill-prepared for the exchange. The senator should have had the exact citation in hand, chapter and verse, to read from if memories were foggy or a deeper dive into the material was warranted. Spoiler alert: it was. But Justice Jackson really should have been better prepared, not with a definition of a woman (which may have been difficult to anticipate), but rather to discuss Justice Ginsburg's writings about gender and sex differences. (Note: after some googling, the case Senator Blackburn referred to appears to be US v Virgina, decided in 1996). It's no secret that this is an active front in the cultural wars, especially with the Bostock decision adding potential transgender angles on past sex-equality precedents. Justice Jackson should have been better prepared to discuss such landmark cases related to sex discrimination, especially those written by the greatest sex-equality crusader in the history of the court. I'm actually more disappointed that Justice Jackson was so unfamiliar with the landmark writings of a SCOTUS giant, than that her off-the-cuff answer wasn't polished and political. Edited April 23, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon I really should proofread before I post... 3
longview Posted April 23, 2022 Posted April 23, 2022 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I think the judge would admonish the lawyer first for asking such an obviously disingenuous and baiting question. Because radical social engineers want to keep their steel grip on the narrative? To honestly answer questions about the basic understanding of human nature having two fundamental sexes would cause them to come face to face with logical absurdities. That would be tantamount to schizophrenia.
Recommended Posts