• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brown Jackson ties womanhood to biology

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.
Um, all the more reason to be sure she understands what a woman is.
 
No one has asked her about CRT yet?
 

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 couldn't even get her name right, for starters. Might not want to lecture others for fear of throwing stones in glass houses.
 
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.

It wasn't a question of legal philosophy. It was a semantical question.
 
You couldn't even get her name right, for starters. Might not want to lecture others for fear of throwing stones in glass houses.
I want lecturing. We all make mistakes. But it was definitely a mistake. Not smart at all.
 
Wrong. Most of roe v wade was written in conjunction with reports from the scientific community at the time.
This isn’t district court. There are no endless parades of trial witnesses and subject matter experts brought to testify before the Supreme Court. There are two attorneys and maybe some amicus briefs. The Justices make their own decisions. And if you can’t answer a question as basic as what a woman is - something even elementary school students know - then you have no business on the Court.
 
How could they rule on questions like trans without knowing what a woman is?

The Supreme Court rules on many matters which involve technical definitions. Their role, which is to decide whether or not a given law is aligned properly with the constitution, doesn't require expertise or prior opinions in all those technical areas. Otherwise every justice would have to be a biologist, physicist, chemist, engineer, and any other specialty you can think of.
 
This isn’t district court. There are no endless parades of trial witnesses and subject matter experts brought to testify before the Supreme Court. There are two attorneys and maybe some amicus briefs. The Justices make their own decisions. And if you can’t answer a question as basic as what a woman is - something even elementary school students know - then you have no business on the Court.
Wrong. The justices may use all the evidence of lower court rulings including scientific evidence

Your opinion is noted and dismissed
 
Wrong. The justices may use all the evidence of lower court rulings including scientific evidence

Your opinion is noted and dismissed
Dismissed. If Jackson is going to hose up the docket with such absurdity to decide whether or not a man in a dress is a woman then she’s unfit for purpose.
 
Dismissed. If Jackson is going to hose up the docket with such absurdity to decide whether or not a man in a dress is a woman then she’s unfit for purpose.
Again....your opinion is noted and dismissed
 
No one has asked her about CRT yet?
Yes they have.


 
Yes they have.


Look at her face. She's thinking, "Pathetic." Her answers were good, I thought. Short, dismissive.
 
Can someone tell me why a case involving trans people in sports would come before SCOTUS?

What part of the Constitution grants unbreachable rights to teenage female swimmers to only swim against others with vaginas?
 
Dismissed. If Jackson is going to hose up the docket with such absurdity to decide whether or not a man in a dress is a woman then she’s unfit for purpose.

The role is SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it relate to people wearing dresses?
 
Can someone tell me why a case involving trans people in sports would come before SCOTUS?

What part of the Constitution grants unbreachable rights to teenage female swimmers to only swim against others with vaginas?
Well let's suppose ncaa or whoever excludes trans males and they sue.

Now can you picture it?
 
Can someone tell me why a case involving trans people in sports would come before SCOTUS?

What part of the Constitution grants unbreachable rights to teenage female swimmers to only swim against others with vaginas?
Sports is only one example of how this insanity is being forced onto others. It's not difficult to see how that might someday end up in front of the Supreme Court.
 
Well let's suppose ncaa or whoever excludes trans males and they sue.

Now can you picture it?

I'll ask again since you didn't understand it the first time.

Where in the Constitution would "trans males" be discussed? What part of the Constitution would the SCOTUS judges me looking to apply and analyze?
 
Sports is only one example of how this insanity is being forced onto others. It's not difficult to see how that might someday end up in front of the Supreme Court.

What insanity is being "forced" upon anyone?

I know someone who was born a male and transitioned to a female. What did she "force" upon me exactly, or you, or anyone else?
 
Back
Top Bottom