Brown Jackson ties womanhood to biology

[Simpletruther]

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist." What are the details? Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing...

www.theblaze.com

Either she is denying trans like that's swimmer dude Lia are women, or, she wasn't smart enough to dodge the question correctly.
I think we all know which of these is correct.

 

[jnug]

Jackson Brown ties womanhood to biology​

Is Jackson still alive? Does he have a new album out?

 

[americanwoman]

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist." What are the details? Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing...

www.theblaze.com

Either she is denying trans like that's Wimmer dude are women, or, she wasn't smart enough to dodge the question correctly.
I think we all know which of these is correct.

Brown Jackson's response sounds about right from what we want in a judge. It's not about their personal definitions it's about looking at the arguments presented and looking at the laws to make a sound judgement not based on feelings.

“Senator, in my work a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson replied. “If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide, so, I’m not —”

 

[Simpletruther]

Jackson Brown ties womanhood to biology​

Is Jackson still alive? Does he have a new album out?

Good one, I am slydexic

 

[Simpletruther]

Brown Jackson's response sounds about right from what we want in a judge. It's not about their personal definitions it's about looking at the arguments presented and looking at the laws to make a sound judgement not based on feelings.

Nay, she wasn't smart enough to realize she is defining womanhood by biology.

 

[j brown's body]

Can we put someone on the Supreme Court who can't or won't define what a woman is? Seems like an essential part of the job.

 

[americanwoman]

Nay, she wasn't smart enough to realize she is defining womanhood by biology.

Sure she wasn't. That's why she is about to be a Supreme Court Judge and you are..... not.

 

[MamboDervish]

Nay, she wasn't smart enough to realize she is defining womanhood by biology.

LMAO - Perhaps you can share with us all your qualifications to judge how smart she is. Here's part of her bio.

"She graduated from Harvard University in 1992 with a B.A. in Govern-
ment, magna cum laude, and then worked for a year as a staff reporter
and researcher at Time Magazine, Inc. She went on to earn her J.D., cum
laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996, where she was a supervising
editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Judge Jackson clerked
for three federal judges appointed by presidents of both political parties:
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court of the Unit-
ed States, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, and Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. . . . . "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you're not even smart enough to judge how smart she is.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Nothing but bigoted nonsense question to pander to their scum base. Holy shit, republicans are scum, and pretty much all of them are as the other sit idly by and allow this Taliban nonsense

 

[Callen]

The absolutely correct answer! There is a biologically correct definition she is not qualified to offer. Anything else would be based on her own personal view and it would be improper to offer a personal opinion on a matter likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Oh well, guess this mean Blackburn won't vote for her.

 

[element94]

Republican indignation = comedy gold!

 

[Cardinal]

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist." What are the details? Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing...

www.theblaze.com

Either she is denying trans like that's swimmer dude Lia are women, or, she wasn't smart enough to dodge the question correctly.
I think we all know which of these is correct.

You got her!!! She’s now obligated to step down from the confirmation process and allow the Federalist Society to name her replacement.

 

[Simpletruther]

You got her!!! She’s now obligated to step down from the confirmation process and allow the Federalist Society to name her replacement.

No you can say dumb stuff and be a scj.

We all can agree on that I think.

 

[Simpletruther]

LMAO - Perhaps you can share with us all your qualifications to judge how smart she is. Here's part of her bio.

"She graduated from Harvard University in 1992 with a B.A. in Govern-
ment, magna cum laude, and then worked for a year as a staff reporter
and researcher at Time Magazine, Inc. She went on to earn her J.D., cum
laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996, where she was a supervising
editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Judge Jackson clerked
for three federal judges appointed by presidents of both political parties:
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court of the Unit-
ed States, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, and Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. . . . . "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you're not even smart enough to judge how smart she is.

I am sure she is intelligent. She didnt act smart at the moment was more my point. Just like I didn't act smart with my phrasing.

 

[Simpletruther]

Sure she wasn't. That's why she is about to be a Supreme Court Judge and you are..... not.

Clever but it doesn't alter the point of her mistake.

So every time you guys out a dumb thing from a conservative I should just say we'll your not a senator/billionaire etcetera and they are. Lol

 

[Napoleon]

Nothing but bigoted nonsense question to pander to their scum base. Holy shit, republicans are scum, and pretty much all of them are as the other sit idly by and allow this Taliban nonsense

If Jackson is confirmed then she will inevitably hear cases involving trans issues. It’s a legitimate question.

 

[americanwoman]

Clever but it doesn't alter the point of her mistake.

So every time you guys out a dumb thing from a conservative I should just say we'll your not a senator/billionaire etcetera and they are. Lol

I'm just saying, a judge's personal definition of a word doesn't matter.

Would you like a judge to put their definition of a word or leave it up to facts? You can play games all you want but if you are being accused of something, you want facts.

 

[americanwoman]

If Jackson is confirmed then she will inevitably hear cases involving trans issues. It’s a legitimate question.

She will also inevitably hear a case involving the death penalty and dementia.

Should the judges call on specialists like neurologists to define dementia or are you cool with them defining it themselves?

 

[Rexedgar]

No you can say dumb stuff and be a scj.

We all can agree on that I think.

“I like beer, Senator, do you like beer.”

quoted from memory….

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

A woman is someone who says they are a woman. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Napoleon]

She will also inevitably hear a case involving the death penalty and dementia.

Should the judges call on specialists like neurologists to define dementia or are you cool with them defining it themselves?

You should be deeply suspect of a judge who claims to have no legal philosophy. Jackson is a Trojan horse but if she wants to claim that there is no legal philosophy guiding her decisions then she needs to explain her personal philosophy.

 

[Napoleon]

She will also inevitably hear a case involving the death penalty and dementia.

Should the judges call on specialists like neurologists to define dementia or are you cool with them defining it themselves?

The Supreme Court doesn’t call on specialists.

 

[Simpletruther]

I'm just saying, a judge's personal definition of a word doesn't matter.

Would you like a judge to put their definition of a word or leave it up to facts? You can play games all you want but if you are being accused of something, you want facts.

Of course it matters. How else would she know if what a woman was without the right definition?

 

[Simpletruther]

The absolutely correct answer! There is a biologically correct definition she is not qualified to offer. Anything else would be based on her own personal view and it would be improper to offer a personal opinion on a matter likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Oh well, guess this mean Blackburn won't vote for her.

Yea but that isn't the leftwing definition, and she will no doubt contradict that claim if transgender stuff gets to the court.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

VIDEO: Ketanji Brown Jackson says she can't define the word 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson said during confirmation hearings Tuesday that she can't define the word "woman" because she's "not a biologist." What are the details? Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee raised the question to Jackson in light of the growing...

www.theblaze.com

Either she is denying trans like that's swimmer dude Lia are women, or, she wasn't smart enough to dodge the question correctly.
I think we all know which of these is correct.

Given the high likelihood that Judge Jackson, as a member of SCOTUS, will hear future civil rights cases involving transgender people, the soon to be Justice answered Blackburn’s obvious, pathetic leading question perfectly.