ADVERTISEMENT

Jackson confirmation hearings

CO. Hoosier said:
New York City recognizes dozens of genders. Midgendering people violates city ordinances. Among the genders are bi-gendered (as distinct from bi-sexual) and gender fluid. What does either mean if we are to use subjective feelings to create legal standards?

The law is noting if it isn't objective.

Us old white guys did pretty good with segregation and 5th amendment jurisprudence. I wouldn’t belittle that just cuz of age and skin color. :)
Click to expand...
IANAL so I respond from a layman’s perspective. What I’m gathering from this and I tried to explain previously is that there are laws intended to rectify cultural imbalances, such as sex discrimination. I understand the motivation for the law but to me the ultimate solution would be not allowing undue discrimination against any individual, or any harassment of any individual as opposed to sexual harassment.

What am I missing?
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Geeze, you are a riot.

I have no idea what you intend, but if you mean injecting bullshit into a discussion in order to satisfy a disconnected argument you’d be wrong. All the legal relevance boils down to sex. Period.

This woke stuff has gotten so bad that the detransition community and those who counsel and treat them are banned, cancelled, and shunned. Trans has taken on a specific evangelistic air and Jackson bought into it.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t weighing in on your arguments. I was saying that your reason for summarily disqualifying Jackson is asinine and your ensuing and ongoing justifications for your decision are just you pretzeling yourself to justify your asinine disqualification.

The real reason you disqualify her are your partisan leanings. We all know that.
 
NOMORENIT said:
Well then you obviously didn't watch any of the Coney Barrett hearings. She either avoided giving direct answers to many many questions or she did a masterful job of not getting tripped up or tricked up in answering gotcha questions. There was no right answer to the Jackson gender question. It's a loaded question that she did not wish to answer at that time. Was Conney Barrett against settled law in Roe vs Wade? She danced all around the abortion questions but her feelings are becoming more and more apparent now.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the best question in the world and I would have asked it in a different way which would include how would the definition of “women” affect the result in a given case. That said, this is the exactly the question that any justice could ask of an attorney during oral arguments.

Barrett has nothing to do with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOMORENIT
iuwclurker said:
IANAL so I respond from a layman’s perspective. What I’m gathering from this and I tried to explain previously is that there are laws intended to rectify cultural imbalances, such as sex discrimination. I understand the motivation for the law but to me the ultimate solution would be not allowing undue discrimination against any individual, or any harassment of any individual as opposed to sexual harassment.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
"any" kind of undermines the rubric, for lack of a better word, of the system. a protected class embodies a group of people who share a specific trait and the law prohibits discrim based on that particular trait
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
CO. Hoosier said:
this is the exactly the question that any justice could ask of an attorney during oral arguments.
Click to expand...
To me that’s the point of Jackson’s response. The Supreme Court justice asks for interpretations and understandings from the two arguing sides and adjudicates. It’s not necessarily the job of the Supreme Court justice to answer such questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
iuwclurker said:
IANAL so I respond from a layman’s perspective. What I’m gathering from this and I tried to explain previously is that there are laws intended to rectify cultural imbalances, such as sex discrimination. I understand the motivation for the law but to me the ultimate solution would be not allowing undue discrimination against any individual, or any harassment of any individual as opposed to sexual harassment.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Discrimination is not illegal or actionable. As you note ”undue” discrimination is. “Undue” must be objective. That is the point here.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
"any" kind of undermines the rubric, for lack of a better word, of the system. a protected class embodies a group of people who share a specific trait and the law prohibits discrim based on that particular trait
Click to expand...
Right. I guess I’m arguing that that system should be undermined. I don’t want to be harassed by anyone for any reason. I don’t want to be discriminated against by anyone for any reason. It just seems like it’s easier to prove discrimination than sexual discrimination. Easier to prove harassment than sexual harassment.

I need a lawyer to figure out what the **** I’m trying to say.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66
iuwclurker said:
I wasn’t weighing in on your arguments. I was saying that your reason for summarily disqualifying Jackson is asinine and your ensuing and ongoing justifications for your decision are just you pretzeling yourself to justify your asinine disqualification.

The real reason you disqualify her are your partisan leanings. We all know that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t “summarily” dismiss Jackson. I object to her based on a disagreement about how she sees the function and purpose of law.

FWIW, I posted here often in favor of Sotomayor and would have voted to confirm. She has since shown herself to be unworthy, but at the time I thought she would be a good addition to the court even though I disagreed with her. The opposite could be true of Jackson.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
I didn’t “summarily” dismiss Jackson. I object to her based on a disagreement about how she sees the function and purpose of law.
Click to expand...

Using “summarily,” I was referring to this post:
CO. Hoosier said:
No. She should have said, “I am a woman, anybody can see that and I don’t need to explain it further”. The question was a bad one, I’d expect a smart lawyer to handle it with ease. Except Jackson didn’t because she was taken by the woke aspects of sex. That is a disqualification for me.
Click to expand...
I don’t think her placement as a Supreme Court justice requires her to make on the spot judgments. She’s supposed to be able to make serious, carefully reasoned judgment.

But whatever you meant is what you meant so I’ll leave that to you.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
How do you feel about vaccine and mask mandates?
Click to expand...
I have two feelings or responses. First, I don’t see how it is discrimination if everybody has to do it. I can see how allowing exceptions creates a slippery slope.

Second, basically I think a mandate is the wrong approach. A better approach is to elevate the individuals in our society to collaborate more and reason out their decisions better. I could elaborate further obviously but that would involve a variety of assertions and viewpoints and so forth.
 
iuwclurker said:
I have two feelings or responses. First, I don’t see how it is discrimination if everybody has to do it. I can see how allowing exceptions creates a slippery slope.

Second, basically I think a mandate is the wrong approach. A better approach is to elevate the individuals in our society to collaborate more and reason out their decisions better. I could elaborate further obviously but that would involve a variety of assertions and viewpoints and so forth.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker
CO. Hoosier said:
It isn’t given a well-worded statute or precedent.
Click to expand...
I see. Guess it would take a really really brilliant lawyer to figure that one out, huh? Meanwhile survival of the fittest. I’m just glad my mom was a bad ass and broke through glass ceilings.
 
It is fun that we still have these little spats about SCOTUS nominees. Haven’t we gone through this enough times already? The nominee gets up there talks about their love of country and the constitution and how thankful they are for all they’ve been afforded.

The next few days is a series of some meritorious but mostly unserious grandstanding by the opposition party. The controlling party treats the candidate as if they are Jesus Christ reincarnate and they are pushed through on a party line vote.

Yawn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4, NPT and UncleMark
iuwclurker said:
I have two feelings or responses. First, I don’t see how it is discrimination if everybody has to do it. I can see how allowing exceptions creates a slippery slope.

Second, basically I think a mandate is the wrong approach. A better approach is to elevate the individuals in our society to collaborate more and reason out their decisions better. I could elaborate further obviously but that would involve a variety of assertions and viewpoints and so forth.
Click to expand...
I can’t figure out what you said. I think you said discrimination against the unvaxxed and those who won’t wear a mask is okay.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
I can’t figure out what you said. I think you said discrimination against the unvaxxed and those who won’t wear a mask is okay.
Click to expand...
No. I think A mandate is a misguided solution.

What I don’t understand is how you interpret a mandate as discriminating against unvaccinated people. Are you saying a law against murder discriminates against murderers?
 
zeke4ahs said:
Just think in your head is it you are in this sentence or not? There has here in it, so it is a place, they’re again they are. These are my second grade tricks I still use. I love having kids come back and tell me they still use some of the spelling and grammar tricks I showed them years ago, cause I do too.
Click to expand...
I don't have trouble with those... to me those are simple but a lot of people sure have trouble if you look at how they write. I don't pay much attention on a place like this because I know people write in a hurry (me included) and don't proofread before hitting Post Reply. If people judge me by the mistakes I make on here then I am in trouble. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs and Aloha Hoosier
NPT said:
I don't have trouble with those... to me those are simple but a lot of people sure have trouble if you look at how they write. I don't pay much attention on a place like this because I know people write in a hurry (me included) and don't proofread before hitting Post Reply. If people judge me by the mistakes I make on here then I am in trouble. :)
Click to expand...

I don't get those usual homonyms mixed up very often, but when I do I at least edit the post. Do people not see their mistake, see it and not care, or do they not know how to make an edit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
iuwclurker said:
I have two feelings or responses. First, I don’t see how it is discrimination if everybody has to do it. I can see how allowing exceptions creates a slippery slope.

Second, basically I think a mandate is the wrong approach. A better approach is to elevate the individuals in our society to collaborate more and reason out their decisions better. I could elaborate further obviously but that would involve a variety of assertions and viewpoints and so forth.
Click to expand...
Let's say everybody has to eat pork because we found that it prevented COVID. Let's say shellfish cures COVID so let's require everyone to eat that too. Let's say everyone that has children has to be married to a person of the opposite sex because studies show that children from stable traditional marriages generally have the best outcomes. Discrimination? Fair?
 
UncleMark said:
I don't get those usual homonyms mixed up very often, but when I do I at least edit the post. Do people not see their mistake, see it and not care, or do they not know how to make an edit?
Click to expand...
I don't proofread on here. If I was sending an email or a letter conducting business I would but on here I realize people are posting from phones, tablets, old slow computers, etc so I pay no attention to misspelled words or wrong grammar as long as I can understand what they are trying to say. Now I'll admit there are one or two that I always want to reply to and say "What?" or "Huh???". 🤣
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Let's say everybody has to eat pork because we found that it prevented COVID. Let's say shellfish cures COVID so let's require everyone to eat that too. Let's say everyone that has children has to be married to a person of the opposite sex because studies show that children from stable traditional marriages generally have the best outcomes. Discrimination? Fair?
Click to expand...
To go even farther let's say that everyone has to cheer for Purdue and watch every game because it cures COVID. 🤣
 
CO. Hoosier said:
I didn’t “summarily” dismiss Jackson. I object to her based on a disagreement about how she sees the function and purpose of law.

FWIW, I posted here often in favor of Sotomayor and would have voted to confirm. She has since shown herself to be unworthy, but at the time I thought she would be a good addition to the court even though I disagreed with her. The opposite could be true of Jackson.
Click to expand...
COH have you read this article? If not, read it and tell me what you think.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
Let's say everybody has to eat pork because we found that it prevented COVID. Let's say shellfish cures COVID so let's require everyone to eat that too. Let's say everyone that has children has to be married to a person of the opposite sex because studies show that children from stable traditional marriages generally have the best outcomes. Discrimination? Fair?
Click to expand...
Sure I get all that. The point I’m making with COH is, how does the term discrimination apply if everybody has to do it? I’m not arguing for or against any particular mandate.
 
UncleMark said:
I don't get those usual homonyms mixed up very often, but when I do I at least edit the post. Do people not see their mistake, see it and not care, or do they not know how to make an edit?
Click to expand...
I dictate most of my texts. One of the problems with the dictation device is that it’ll show one thing and then when I end the dictation it’ll auto change it to something else. I might not notice that change.
 
NPT said:
To go even farther let's say that everyone has to cheer for Purdue and watch every game because it cures COVID. 🤣
Click to expand...
That’s about as extreme as saying we should kill babies to make sure they don’t get Covid.
 
iuwclurker said:
Sure I get all that. The point I’m making with COH is, how does the term discrimination apply if everybody has to do it? I’m not arguing for or against any particular mandate.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand you. Unvaxed can loose there jobs in many cases. That is discrimination.
 
NPT said:
I don't have trouble with those... to me those are simple but a lot of people sure have trouble if you look at how they write. I don't pay much attention on a place like this because I know people write in a hurry (me included) and don't proofread before hitting Post Reply. If people judge me by the mistakes I make on here then I am in trouble. :)
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, I misread.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
I don’t understand you. Unvaxed can loose there jobs in many cases. That is discrimination.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s not part of the mandate per se.

I understand that in Europe they have vaccine identification cards and they are (or were) creating restrictions on what people without the IDs can do. I don’t think that’s happening here though.
 
yuGtaDooH said:
It is fun that we still have these little spats about SCOTUS nominees. Haven’t we gone through this enough times already? The nominee gets up there talks about their love of country and the constitution and how thankful they are for all they’ve been afforded.

The next few days is a series of some meritorious but mostly unserious grandstanding by the opposition party. The controlling party treats the candidate as if they are Jesus Christ reincarnate and they are pushed through on a party line vote.

Yawn.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up. Most everything these days is about love of party (above country) and trying to make the other party look bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT


Sigh. Party line vote again? So, she’s qualified but I disagree with her is the reason. Can somebody explain what the Senate’s role in confirming a justice is again?

It’s just back and forth then. Neither party will rise above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT and anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
NPT said:
COH have you read this article? If not, read it and tell me what you think.
Click to expand...
Judicial philosophy expressed in those terms is more academic than useful. How you look at a constitution or statute depends on much more than judicial philosophy. In the states, for example, constitutional amendments and statutes passed by referendums are interpreted differently from legislative actions. There is no relevant legislative history to consider for measures passed by voters. Everything rides on the text.

In federal law, I think the overriding relevant judicial philosophy is strict adherence to separation of powers. We don’t want courts acting like legislators or acting like executives. We don’t want appellate courts acting like juries. Courts tend to overstep their function more than before in these areas.

I actually thought Jackson’s comments about her decision-making process were good. But I don’t think she practices what she preaches based on some things I have read about her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT
outside shooter said:
I don't really want a judge to offer up fixed opinions, in a vaccuum, on issues that may be argued before a court. Plainly stated, the best answer would be that there could possibly be different legal standands for defining gender that could be argued.

"As a judge, I would listen to different arguments and decide which arguments are or are not congruent with established legal precedent and with constitutional standands".

Not very sound-bitey or meme-able, but it is the responsible answer.
Click to expand...
We are really at the point where we are going to he arguing what a woman is or is not in court?

The people that entertain this absolute horseshit are ****ing stupid. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312 and IUINSB
IU_Hickory said:
That about sums it up. Most everything these days is about love of party (above country) and trying to make the other party look bad.
Click to expand...
Lol. This post is worthless coming from you. I’m a hard partisan as well so I’m not judging you for that.

I’m judging you for your lack of self awareness.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back