ADVERTISEMENT

Jackson confirmation hearings

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.
Civilization is a game and people create, agree and disagree with the rules. One of the original “natural” rules is the binary distinction of men and women as players in the game. The truth is all people are human beings. Being human is more basic than gender, race, and age. The rules need to reflect this truth.

People go in the opposite direction. They create more and more rules based on differences rather than solving the problem by making the most basic rules uniformly applicable to all people.
 
Last edited:
Elected Repub officials often cite integrity yet fail to demonstrate that principle.
Wow, you obviously did not watch any hearings when the Democratic Senators acted like total jackasses. They attacked the character of each nominee. It was beneath their character of being a Senator. At least this was about her rulings which have been overturned by higher courts and her beliefs. Unfortunately, she will make a good token justice on the court. He could have picked so many other black women which would have actually serve the court and the country so much better.
 
Civilization is a game and people create, agree and disagree with the rules. One of the original “natural” rules is the binary distinction of men and women as players in the game. The truth is all people are human beings. Being human is more basic than gender, race, and age. The rules need to reflect this truth.

People go in the opposite direction. They create more and more rules based on differences rather than solving the problem by making the most basic rules uniformly applicable to all people.
Wow. Just wow.

The natural rules are that life goes on. Life goes on because of the binary sexual differences. Even you are a product of sexual differences. So is Judge Jackson. So is every single one of the dolts who deny this fundamental truth. The argument that humans are more basic than sex is nonsense because without the binary sex there are no humans.
 
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.

Never said dems were perfect just because they aren't the traitorous shitbags of the gop.

Your judgment is worthless. Like I care what a trumpshit thinks ;)
 
Wow. Just wow.

The natural rules are that life goes on. Life goes on because of the binary sexual differences. Even you are a product of sexual differences. So is Judge Jackson. So is every single one of the dolts who deny this fundamental truth. The argument that humans are more basic than sex is nonsense because without the binary sex there are no humans.
Your argument doesn’t work under either evolution or spiritual theories.
 
And as to the topic again you're off
Disagreeance. I understand that laws have traditionally been made to align to our understanding of nature and life, such as the difference between man and woman. The problem with laws is they can closely align to the truth of basic life and nature or not. For example, current laws in Muslim countries that basically give the wife no rights clearly do not align anywhere closely to the truth of life and nature.

Here in the US our laws have evolved as we have made them closer to the truth of life and further from arbitrary dictates of tradition, ancient custom, doctrine, or whatever.

The very notion of protected classes is an attempt to correct prior imbalances in our laws and in our life. In this context, which is very much related to the notion of how to legally address sexual identity, I am asserting that the most basic truth is that we are all human beings. The more closely our laws align to that basic truth, The more workable they will be (and the less people will be discriminated against, for example).
 
Wow, you obviously did not watch any hearings when the Democratic Senators acted like total jackasses. They attacked the character of each nominee. It was beneath their character of being a Senator. At least this was about her rulings which have been overturned by higher courts and her beliefs. Unfortunately, she will make a good token justice on the court. He could have picked so many other black women which would have actually serve the court and the country so much better.
Really? What exactly are your issues with her? Who do you feel should have been named?
 
Really? What exactly are your issues with her? Who do you feel should have been named?

She was nominated by Biden. That's the only issue. Note that the normal con/Pub posters who are not totally ate up by their partisan hackery aren't taking issue with her. Those that are are grasping at her inarticulate response to the "woman" question like a piece of flotsam in rough seas. They've got nothing else to hold onto, so that's become their lifeboat.
 
She was nominated by Biden. That's the only issue. Note that the normal con/Pub posters who are not totally ate up by their partisan hackery aren't taking issue with her. Those that are are grasping at her inarticulate response to the "woman" question like a piece of flotsam in rough seas. They've got nothing else to hold onto, so that's become their lifeboat.
I don't think that's fair. I think her history coupled with Biden's predilection for "lefties" should give conservatives pause and if they don't support her so be it. He could have picked someone more moderate. Who knows how she'll turn out but if we're in the predicting game I understand conservatives not voting up for her. By the same token I don't have an issue with Dems doing the same to Barrett. She "appears" farther right than a conservative moderate pick
 
Fire, your nerve endings will be shot after a minute. Takes several minutes to fully drown.

At least that's what i've heard.
My father suffered 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts... Said it was The most excruciating pain he ever endured..., and he had multiple broken bones, a back injury, etc... (Marines WW2 plus USMC training and boxing)... Wouldn't let me light a fire by myself until I was 10 and I could tell he was nervous about it...

I've had a large amount of water in my lungs and while it was extremely uncomfortable I'm pretty sure you'd pass out rather quickly if you weren't able to expel it..., maybe 2 & 1/2 minutes if you're in shape... I'll take drowning given a choice... It's the anxiety/panic triggered that's tough with that...
 
  • Wow
Reactions: mcmurtry66
My father suffered 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts... Said it was The most excruciating pain he ever endured..., and he had multiple broken bones, a back injury, etc... (Marines WW2 plus USMC training and boxing)... Wouldn't let me light a fire by myself until I was 10 and I could tell he was nervous about it...

I've had a large amount of water in my lungs and while it was extremely uncomfortable I'm pretty sure you'd pass out rather quickly if you weren't able to expel it..., maybe 2 & 1/2 minutes if you're in shape... I'll take drowning given a choice... It's the anxiety/panic triggered that's tough with that...
I’ve done the third degree burn and skin graft. On my arm. Pretty decent story that, predictably, involves alcohol. I was burned so badly the third degree didn’t hurt as much as the second degree around the edges. Still can’t feel a pretty significant part my right wrist and forearm.

Once got held under water until I inhaled water when I was about 9 or ten by an older cousin. That scared the ever living shit out of me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
I’ve done the third degree burn and skin graft. On my arm. Pretty decent story that, predictably, involves alcohol. I was burned so badly the third degree didn’t hurt as much as the second degree around the edges. Still can’t feel a pretty significant part my right wrist and forearm.

Once got held under water until I inhaled water when I was about 9 or ten by an older cousin. That scared the ever living shit out of me.
It's my understanding that it was the de-abrasion sessions and the skin grafts that Dad found painful..., of course that was using 1940's technique...

He was one of the toughest/most stoic men to have ever trod the planet so I know it had to have Really hurt to have him remark on it... He saw a lot of guys in the hospital more injured than him so he made a point of not talking about it much... He just used it as a warning to his child (me). Didn't work... Oversized campfires and fireworks were regularly a part of my misspent youth...

Almost bagged myself with a gasoline ignition of some green brush in my fire pit that wouldn't light ( the fumes accumulation literally "chased" me due to the atmospheric conditions...)... I was a very lucky boy to have survived that unscathed (and learned why everyone tells you Not to do that 😉).
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Disagreeance. I understand that laws have traditionally been made to align to our understanding of nature and life, such as the difference between man and woman. The problem with laws is they can closely align to the truth of basic life and nature or not. For example, current laws in Muslim countries that basically give the wife no rights clearly do not align anywhere closely to the truth of life and nature.

Here in the US our laws have evolved as we have made them closer to the truth of life and further from arbitrary dictates of tradition, ancient custom, doctrine, or whatever.

The very notion of protected classes is an attempt to correct prior imbalances in our laws and in our life. In this context, which is very much related to the notion of how to legally address sexual identity, I am asserting that the most basic truth is that we are all human beings. The more closely our laws align to that basic truth, The more workable they will be (and the less people will be discriminated against, for example).
The nature of life and the difference between man and women is not an "understanding" any more than the presence of gravity is an "understanding". The two sexes did not evolve from tradition, ancient custom, doctrine or even hocus pocus. The sexes are the foundation of life as we live it.

The differing and often unjust treatment of the sexes in civil and ecclesiastical law are real enough, but the remedy is not found in fooling around with dozens of genders and identities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812 and 76-1
Condoleezza Rice

Why would dems nominate a gop mouthpiece?

Cause Trump was looking for liberal options for all of his nominations?

Oh wait nevermind. He only chose conservatives to stack the court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that's fair. I think her history coupled with Biden's predilection for "lefties" should give conservatives pause and if they don't support her so be it. He could have picked someone more moderate. Who knows how she'll turn out but if we're in the predicting game I understand conservatives not voting up for her. By the same token I don't have an issue with Dems doing the same to Barrett. She "appears" farther right than a conservative moderate pick
You're the only one I noticed in this thread with the honesty to state explicitly that it might be wise to oppose her for partisan ideological reasons. I think Mark is taking issue with the multitude who are trying to hide their partisan desires behind some other ridiculous non-issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
You're the only one I noticed in this thread with the honesty to state explicitly that it might be wise to oppose her for partisan ideological reasons. I think Mark is taking issue with the multitude who are trying to hide their partisan desires behind some other ridiculous non-issue.
... On an anonymous Internet forum. Nothing quite like hiding behind pixels...
 
Harry Enten: Despite everything, Jackson might be helped by the fact that she is the most popular nominee since Roberts.

 
You're the only one I noticed in this thread with the honesty to state explicitly that it might be wise to oppose her for partisan ideological reasons. I think Mark is taking issue with the multitude who are trying to hide their partisan desires behind some other ridiculous non-issue.
Yeah. Opposing her for succumbing to trendy wokeism is nonpartisan.
 
Goat clearly omitted the nuance of the continuum of partisanship from highly principled to gutter sewage.
Why don’t you people just cut the crap.

We all know that Jackson could say what a woman is. Anybody can do that. The law is full of examples where that is necessary. RBG left her mark on that area of the law. Before Blackburn asked the dreaded”woman” question, Blackburn asked Jackson about RBG’s writings and opinions about womens rights. Jackson dodged those questions also. Woman’s rights are a huge and important part of the law. California even recently passed a statute requiring women membership on boards of directors. Statutes like that must be applied.

So what did Jackson do with this important area of law? She dumped all over it. She didn’t need to. That was her choice. Her reasons are her own, and she kept them her own. That shows me something works in her mind tgat I don’t want on the Supreme Court.
 
You're the only one I noticed in this thread with the honesty to state explicitly that it might be wise to oppose her for partisan ideological reasons. I think Mark is taking issue with the multitude who are trying to hide their partisan desires behind some other ridiculous non-issue.

Except that wasn't how it was done in the past when the vast majority would confirm appointments
 
Civilization is a game and people create, agree and disagree with the rules. One of the original “natural” rules is the binary distinction of men and women as players in the game. The truth is all people are human beings. Being human is more basic than gender, race, and age. The rules need to reflect this truth.

People go in the opposite direction. They create more and more rules based on differences rather than solving the problem by making the most basic rules uniformly applicable to all people.
****ing. Stupid.
 
Wow. Just wow.

The natural rules are that life goes on. Life goes on because of the binary sexual differences. Even you are a product of sexual differences. So is Judge Jackson. So is every single one of the dolts who deny this fundamental truth. The argument that humans are more basic than sex is nonsense because without the binary sex there are no humans.
You are honestly entertaining this stupidity far more than we should. It is the reason we got here to begin with. William Thomas can call himself Lia but he has a penis. He is still attracted to women. He has a Y chromosome. He is a man that does the equivalent of "female blackface" and gets to be on a women's swim team where he gets to dominate the ladies. And I bet if you dug down on the guy psychologically, he probably has some real "women" issues.

He is a male. We got here by allowing these idiots to play this stupid shit over a true fraction of a percent of the populace. "Well there are biological/genetic hermaphrodite issues...." That is not what this is though. Bruce Jenner is a dude. William Thomas is a dude. They can play dress up, chop off what they like and at the end of the day they are mentally ill body dysmorphics.

What is a woman? The same thing she has been for millenia. You don't have to mess with the definition. You just don't even entertain this dumbassery anymore. It is a free country and they are free to fairy tale their lives into whatever the hell they want to be. You can dress up like Legolas, claim to be from the Woodland Realm, and go about your business. Does not mean the rest of us have to play pretend with you.

Like I have said 2 other times now, this is ****ing stupid. Building society around the whims of the cranks and mentally ill will ensure your society is dysfunctional. We all just need to stop playing along. The bullies cannot bully you if you allow them no power over you.
 
You are honestly entertaining this stupidity far more than we should. It is the reason we got here to begin with. William Thomas can call himself Lia but he has a penis. He is still attracted to women. He has a Y chromosome. He is a man that does the equivalent of "female blackface" and gets to be on a women's swim team where he gets to dominate the ladies. And I bet if you dug down on the guy psychologically, he probably has some real "women" issues.

He is a male. We got here by allowing these idiots to play this stupid shit over a true fraction of a percent of the populace. "Well there are biological/genetic hermaphrodite issues...." That is not what this is though. Bruce Jenner is a dude. William Thomas is a dude. They can play dress up, chop off what they like and at the end of the day they are mentally ill body dysmorphics.

What is a woman? The same thing she has been for millenia. You don't have to mess with the definition. You just don't even entertain this dumbassery anymore. It is a free country and they are free to fairy tale their lives into whatever the hell they want to be. You can dress up like Legolas, claim to be from the Woodland Realm, and go about your business. Does not mean the rest of us have to play pretend with you.

Like I have said 2 other times now, this is ****ing stupid. Building society around the whims of the cranks and mentally ill will ensure your society is dysfunctional. We all just need to stop playing along. The bullies cannot bully you if you allow them no power over you.
You are correct. All this male/female/gender dysphoria stuff is way overplayed. Just like we have come to overplay everything because we don’t have real things to worry about. This is the wages of privilege. In many parts of the world, the courts are used as instruments of oppression, subjugation, and worse. In the United States the courts are the epitome of our values and justice. In the US people can actually sue the government and win injunctions and damages. What a concept! When members of the court quibble and wring their hands over who is a woman, they insult the courts and Lady Justice.
 
You are honestly entertaining this stupidity far more than we should. It is the reason we got here to begin with. William Thomas can call himself Lia but he has a penis. He is still attracted to women. He has a Y chromosome. He is a man that does the equivalent of "female blackface" and gets to be on a women's swim team where he gets to dominate the ladies. And I bet if you dug down on the guy psychologically, he probably has some real "women" issues.

He is a male. We got here by allowing these idiots to play this stupid shit over a true fraction of a percent of the populace. "Well there are biological/genetic hermaphrodite issues...." That is not what this is though. Bruce Jenner is a dude. William Thomas is a dude. They can play dress up, chop off what they like and at the end of the day they are mentally ill body dysmorphics.

What is a woman? The same thing she has been for millenia. You don't have to mess with the definition. You just don't even entertain this dumbassery anymore. It is a free country and they are free to fairy tale their lives into whatever the hell they want to be. You can dress up like Legolas, claim to be from the Woodland Realm, and go about your business. Does not mean the rest of us have to play pretend with you.

Like I have said 2 other times now, this is ****ing stupid. Building society around the whims of the cranks and mentally ill will ensure your society is dysfunctional. We all just need to stop playing along. The bullies cannot bully you if you allow them no power over you.
If Bruce Jenner had done the Decathlon as a woman in the Olympics s/he would still have the record. If I had swam as a female in high school, I would have qualified for state and been a finalist. I didn’t qualify for state as a male.

This has to be resolved. Lia’s finishes in NCAA swimming should be disqualified or have an asterisk. I feel for her, but I feel for the actual biological women more.
 
Maybe. But at least McM is honest about his problems with KBJ.

But if the senate is supposed to confirm based on being qualified and not partisan differences (like how it was done prior to McConnell bastardizing the process) then you can't oppose confirmation based on partisan disagreements. Opposition should be based on being unfit, not their ideology.
 
We learned after the senate hearing that Brown Jackson holds no position about inalienable rights. The concepts that people own all political power, that people have rights that no government can extinguish, and that our government must operate with the consent of the governed are the bedrock of the American experiment and are still largely unique in the world. Congress, the President, and the federal government connive and conspire to reverse these concepts almost every single day. With the citizens largely ignorant of the basis of governing in the United States, we must look to SCOTUS as the guardian. Brown Jackson won’t commit to this. Another reason why she must be rejected. .

This may not be her fault. She might be a product of piss poor education and legal training that focused on different flavors of “justice” instead of what the law is, where it comes from, why we have it, and how to apply it.
 
Last edited:
We learned after the senate hearing that Brown Jackson holds no position about inalienable rights. The concepts that people own all political power, that people have rights that no government can extinguish, and that our government must operate with the consent of the governed are the bedrock of the American experiment and are still largely unique in the world. Congress, the President, and the federal government connive and conspire to reverse these concepts almost every single day. With the citizens largely ignorant of the basis of governing in the United States, we must look to SCOTUS as the guardian. Brown Jackson won’t commit to this. Another reason why she must be rejected. .

This may not be her fault. She might be a product of piss poor education and legal training that focused on different flavors of “justice” instead of what the law is, where it comes from, why we have it, and how to apply it.
Citation?
 
We learned after the senate hearing that Brown Jackson holds no position about inalienable rights. The concepts that people own all political power, that people have rights that no government can extinguish, and that our government must operate with the consent of the governed are the bedrock of the American experiment and are still largely unique in the world. Congress, the President, and the federal government connive and conspire to reverse these concepts almost every single day. With the citizens largely ignorant of the basis of governing in the United States, we must look to SCOTUS as the guardian. Brown Jackson won’t commit to this. Another reason why she must be rejected. .

This may not be her fault. She might be a product of piss poor education and legal training that focused on different flavors of “justice” instead of what the law is, where it comes from, why we have it, and how to apply it.

Awesome propaganda spin you have there. It's always great hearing what the nutbags are saying.

You realize it starts with "we have to reject any nomination made by a liberal" and then seeing what bs explanation they can give to make it sound reasonable or reasonable to their voters that will likely soak up whatever excuse they want to give.
 
Awesome propaganda spin you have there. It's always great hearing what the nutbags are saying.

You realize it starts with "we have to reject any nomination made by a liberal" and then seeing what bs explanation they can give to make it sound reasonable or reasonable to their voters that will likely soak up whatever excuse they want to give.
You really are pretty dumb. I was hoping for a post in defense of Brown Jackson’s position on natural law. That would be interesting. All you show, is all you ever show, you are totally incapable at pretty much everything.
 

Thanks.
15.Please explain, in your own words, the theory prevalent among members of the Founding Fathers’ generation that humans possess natural rights that are inherent or inalienable.
RESPONSE: The theory that humans possess inherent or inalienable rights is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
16.Do you hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights, yes or no?
RESPONSE: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights. a.If yes, what is your position? RESPONSE: Please see my response to Question 16.
17.Please articulate your understanding of the distinction between natural law and positive law, and state whether you consider each to be relevant to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, congressional power, or federal law?
RESPONSE: I understand natural law to refer to principles derived from nature that govern human conduct. I understand positive law to refer to enacted legal texts, such as the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties. I interpret federal law according to the methods of interpretation employed by the Supreme Court, including by resolving cases or controversies based on the text at issue, any pertinent history, and any applicable precedent.
So she's a practitioner, not a legal theorist or philosopher. That's to be expected from someone who has been in the trenches rather than the ivory towers.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT